| Bodhesatva said: I've been doing a bit of digging on this issue, and I've discovered that cartoons that depict real places are basically never prosecuted, while most movies (with real footage) can be and have been prosecuted. What this suggests -- from a laymen's perspective -- is that level of detail is important. If you just make some vague depiction of the interior that really looks very little like the actual, then you're in the clear. If it's a literal moving film of the inside, then you can get in trouble. What about something in between, like Resistance? It's not literally a real depiction, but it's precise, accurate, and deliberately as close to the real as possible. I'm not sure if that's legal or not, but it doesn't sound like it's an absurd claim. It falls right on the cusp of legality, from what I can tell. |
That's the way I feel as well. I never said that this was a good suit. Just there might be some legal merit for it. Fanboys in their rage put their own spin on what I said.
