MAC Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Support of the Shosh Yonay Interests in the “Top Guns” Case

The Music Artists Coalition and the Independent Book Publishers Association (IBPA) filed a joint amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court in the Shosh Yonay, et al v. Paramount Pictures Corporation (the “Top Guns” Case) on August 13, 2026. The brief was submitted to the court by counsel of record Tim Kappel of Wells & Kappel, LLP. Find a link to the Supreme Court docket here.

Ron Gubitz, Executive Director for the Music Artists Coalition, said “Copyright termination is one of the only tools creators have to reclaim what is rightfully theirs, to get a second bite at the apple after others have already profited from it. If a grantee can sidestep termination simply by pointing to a derivative work made after the fact, then that right simply becomes hollow. Congress drew a clear line with terminations, no new derivative works.” 

Tim Kappel, the New Orleans-based Partner at Wells & Kappel, LLP, said “Taken to its logical conclusion, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could have severe repercussions for songwriters and recording artists. Once termination rights are invoked, the Copyright Act doesn’t permit publishers and record labels to create new derivatives without permission. This much is clear from the statutory text as well as the legislative history surrounding termination rights. But the Ninth Circuit panel’s opinion reads ambiguity into a narrow exception where there really is none, and creates a carve out to the carve out that will ultimately harm all authors if the decision is left to stand.”

MAC filed this brief because this issue reaches past the book and publishing industry and into copyright termination, important for creators in all fields. Copyright terminations are one of the most important and useful tools that the United States Congress provided to book writers, songwriters and artists alike. The “Top Guns” Case touches on a "carved out" crucial exception with respect to copyright termination. 

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, any songwriter or artist (or their heirs) who had previously granted or transferred interests in their copyrights had the statutory right to “get a second bite at the apple” and reclaim those interests following the rules set forth in the Copyright Act. However, the Copyright Act also includes a "derivative work” exception to the general rule. Any exploitation by the grantee of the derivative work is acceptable if it was prepared before termination takes effect, but the exception expressly prohibits the grantee from preparing new derivative works after termination.

The main arguments of the brief are that the language of the Copyright Act is clear in that Congress prohibited new derivative works from being prepared after termination, the derivative works exception draws a clear line with termination rights. The legal standard should not turn on endpoint resemblance alone and should consider protected incorporation and adaptation. Finally, an authorized intermediate derivative does not break the chain of incorporation.

Although the “Top Guns” Case does not impact music artists on its face the implications are tenfold. Musical compositions are often modified by various creators, undergoing continuous evolution. These subsequent iterations may blend the initial songwriter's creation with novel contributions from vocalists, producers, orchestrators, lyric adaptors, and session musicians. MAC’s brief points out that this delicate but powerful system of enforcement would be put into a state of chaos and frankly it would give a lot of the big industry labels loopholes and possible legal exceptions to use in lieu of relinquishing copyright interests.