3 ms·
I have my doubts about it's merits too, but the fact is the first film cited the article as an inspiration in the end credits, and the studio licensed the artic
by simonh 4y ago
I have my doubts about it's merits too, but the fact is the first film cited the article as an inspiration in the end credits, and the studio licensed the article for adaptation. The license was cancelled a few years ago.
- shakahshakah 4y agoLast week's "Bloomberg Law" on radio touched on this -- unfortunately can't find a link that contains it, but it was at the end of the episode broadcast over this past weekend. In a nutshell, law prof said the article (Top Guns) was a non-fiction work, didn't bear much resemblance to the movie (no competition, no RIO dies, no female manufacturer rep, no MIGs, etc., really just a day-in-the-life of two guys at Top Gun), and Paramount likely didn't need the license for the first movie either. Also touched on differences re what copyright covers for non-fiction v. works of fiction, a even if it was held up in court what the $$ damages would be (in a lot of cases the courts look to the past to establish a value of such a license, and in this case they have the exact example from the first movie re what the willing seller agreed to with Paramount).