Last 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 th

Last 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).