Why is it so much more common for Anime/Manga to feature real-life locations in the story?
There's even a Wikipedia article related to this: [Seichi junrei](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seichi_junrei), which is a slang-term for tourism to locations featured in Anime. Places like *Shelter* (Starry in *Bocchi the Rock!*), *K-ON's* school, the stairs from *Your Name* are all subject to this effect. *Cinderella Grey* just straight up uses photos of real locations as backgrounds. Hell Mappa animated their own building being destroyed in the recent CSM movie.
Meanwhile this is almost unheard of in Western (I'm listing American shows here because that's what I'm familiar with) animated media. *Hey Arnold!* is supposed to take place in Washington State, but nothing in that show even remotely looks like what the PNW looks like. In fact it looks more like New York. *Gravity Falls* takes place in a fictional town of Oregon, and even has episodes set in [totally-not-Crater Lake](https://gravityfalls.fandom.com/wiki/Lake_Gravity_Falls), which is strange, because I'm sure the NPS would've loved to have that place featured in a show. There are a lot more examples, but you can refer to [this image](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj2lvjxa76zh91.png) for the longest running show set in each state. Pretty much all of these shows are set in fictional cities in real states.
Obviously promoting tourism is a reason for it, but it's not like the US is short of places that want tourists. Not really sure why Western media is so allergic to using real locations. Is there more of a concern for copyright or something?
Meanwhile this is almost unheard of in Western (I'm listing American shows here because that's what I'm familiar with) animated media. *Hey Arnold!* is supposed to take place in Washington State, but nothing in that show even remotely looks like what the PNW looks like. In fact it looks more like New York. *Gravity Falls* takes place in a fictional town of Oregon, and even has episodes set in [totally-not-Crater Lake](https://gravityfalls.fandom.com/wiki/Lake_Gravity_Falls), which is strange, because I'm sure the NPS would've loved to have that place featured in a show. There are a lot more examples, but you can refer to [this image](https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fj2lvjxa76zh91.png) for the longest running show set in each state. Pretty much all of these shows are set in fictional cities in real states.
Obviously promoting tourism is a reason for it, but it's not like the US is short of places that want tourists. Not really sure why Western media is so allergic to using real locations. Is there more of a concern for copyright or something?
Commentaires
Why aren't more western cartoons set in LA then lol. ~~Or Seoul~~.
It still kind of doesn't make sense. For example Dana Terrace has said that she had The Owl House partially set in Connecticut because it's her home state, so why didn't the show put remotely any effort into making it look that way?
>Comparatively, Japan is cleaner and safer, and the people are better behaved socially, so using real locations doesn’t mean those locations will then be vandalized whereas in the US…well it’s a toss up. We really can’t have or keep most things nice.
Yeah that is a bit of a problem. [Remember hitchBOT?](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HitchBOT)
Ask American shows for that lol. It's really simple no need to overthink it/ do mental gymnastics why. For Japan, they want to include real life locations so they do it. For the West, if they don't want to, then they don't want to. It's as simple as that.
The steps from the Joker Movie or the Exorcist movie...you think they aren’t over visited and probably vandalized to some degree since they’re just public steps? lol.
The only movie attractions in America NOT at risk of being vandalized are the historic sites protected by armed federal guards. Japan doesn’t have that risk.
There are also different laws that impact that, and tradition, and various other cultural aspects. In the US you can get slapped with defamation for example. Which ties back to studio driven series.
Also, Americans travel way less, everything is far away from everything
You could say that US copyright views "Art" as a commodity where societal benefit the primary concern, where only minimal proctions are provided to artists and public usage of art is encouraged to a maximal extent that still reserves an incentive to create art for artists. US IP law is explicitly about allowing contracts to govern Artists relationship with their Art, and treats Art no differently than any other kind of property.
By contrast, Japanese copyright is overwhelming concerned with permitting artists to control their creations to a maximal extent, believing that beyond simple $ and cents, Artists have a right to control their Art.
For example, Artists who sell their art still retain powerful "Moral rights" in Japan that permit them to exert control over their artworks, such as the ability to alter or add onto their stories--a novelist or mangaka that sells their work to a publisher as an irrevocable right in Japan to prohibit the publisher from creating sequels or spinoffs without their express consent. In the US, the publisher can simply purchase a work wholesale and then do whatever they want with a story so long as that's what the contract said.
But one way in which this "Control" issue emerges in a way a lot of Americans find distasteful about Japanese IP Law is the issue of "Fair Use."
The US Copyright Laws recognize fair use, which permits the usage of others' copyrighted materials if there is a "transformational use" such as using a video clip of a movie to critique the movie, or parody
Japanese copyright differs significantly in that Japanese copyright law does NOT recognize any form of "Fair use" exception. In Japan, you cannot take a clip from a movie and use it as part of a critique without obtaining permission for the clip's usage. You cannot create a parody that uses copyrighted materials without obtaining permission.
All's which is to say, I don't know the answer to why Japaense animation is so fond of Seichi-Junrei and IRL locations, while Western Animation is not, but Copyright isn't the reason, I don't think.
You can make your own, idk, Evangelion manga and sell it on the Comiket
I think it's safe to say that I probably know a bit more about the differences between US and Japanese law than you do.
Doujin culture in Japan is expressly *permissive*. All doujin are acknowledged to be violations of copyright, however, publishers choose not to shut them down out of their own choice. Thus all Doujins are expressly operating within limits that can be dictated to them by the publisher or face immediate shutdown.
For example, Uma Musume franchise famously put down its foot saying no erotic doujins and aggressively push against any attempt to create erotic doujins based on its IPs. They still exist, but the publisher can shut this down legally, because it's fully within their legal rights. They could, theoretically say NO doujins at all.
As an example of such a instance, there was a famous incident where a doujin author that was fond of Doreaemon created a "Final Episode" of Doraemon's manga (which is famously unfinished due to the author's death). The final episode doujin was so good (it imitated the art style perfectly) and the story was good enough the doujin manga buzzed and became very popular and people began thinking it was a real thing by the original mangaka that was discovered or something.
The publisher put out a cease and desist to the doujin author, who then did their best to recall all copies of the doujin and repaid their revenue from the doujin sales to the publisher.
The Publisher could do this, because again, Doujin works are expressly permissive, and the publisher can withdraw permission at ANY TIME.
Again, because in Japanese IP law, the Creator is God. (and when the publisher is acting in accordance to the creator's wishes, so is hte publisher)
>Doujin culture in Japan is expressly *permissive*. All doujin are acknowledged to be violations of copyright, however, publishers choose not to shut them down out of their own choice
So, it's far more stringent or permissive?
Also avoiding copyright claims it's far more easy, just change one letter and you are safe
[https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/4f74650afe11.png](https://cdn.imgchest.com/files/4f74650afe11.png)
* US Publishers lack such power. Makers of parodies (fan fics) do not need permission.
Japanese copyright gives creators/publishers more power thus Copyright is more stringent in Japan. That's why Doujins are permissive, but fanfic in the US is not permissive--Americans need no permission.
Also, changing 1 letter avoids (or attempts to avoid) issues of TRADEMARK, but not copyright. If you want to learn about the differences between Patent, Trademark and Copyright, you'll have to do your own research as I'm not gonna teach you IP law over Reddit lol.'
As an aside, commercial fan fics may run into TRADEMARK issues in the US, even if they are permissible from a copyright standpoint.
Does that make sense? That's as clear as I can make it.
Parodies are allowed, yes, but If I make a completely serious Spiderman Comic with no parody or mockery on it it would be illegal and I would be in serious trouble
While in Japan they generally operate in good faith, with only a few willing to go all nuclear to stop doujinshi, and they usually fix things easily. Like you say, just return all the money you did, maybe write a public apology and we are fine.
Laws may be stricter, but they are rarely enforced
I said that Japanese *Copyright Law* is more stringent. You are talking about to what extent Japanese publishers choose to enforce their copyright, which is about Japanese culture as pertains to IP related issues.
The Law of a country can be more stringent while the cultural application can be different. For example,
Country A Punishes running a stop sign with a $200 fine
Country B punishes running a stop sign with a $1000 fine and 3 days in jail
I think all would agree that Country B's laws are stricter.
But if in Country B, it is generally accepted that you can run a red light if it's perfectly safe and the penalty is only applied if you cause an accident or endanger someone, a person might say Country B is *less* strict culturally about enforcing stop sign running.
Legal strictness, and cultural strictness in enforcement are two separate issues.
If you make your own spiderman comic in the US, the issue you will run into is *trademark*. Marvel Comics owns the trademark for Spiderman, thus creating a work that uses the SPiderman trademark will violate this--IF the spiderman comic would cause confusion that it was being created by Marvel, and not an entirely separate work.
For example, there's a famous case that's called the "Wind Done Gone" case where an American author wrote a parody of Gone with the Wind, but from the perspective of the black characters. There was a copyright/trademark case against the author, and despite the fact the book had several pages where the contents were word for word the same as Gone with the Wind, the author prevailed.
It was held that the work would not be confused or affiliated with Gone with the Wind, and the copyright contents were transformatively repurposed in the work to take on a new character, thus was permissible.
The key hurdle you have to pass in the US is whether the work woud, or would not be confused with the original franchise/IP property.
But as to how the LAW of Japan and the US apportions legal power, Japanese law indisputably gives more power to creators and publishers than US law.
Practice (looking at the prevelancy of the many, many doujinshi) learns that publishers also follow this usually. Unless the work is basically asking for it to get striked.
I don't know how many comic book superheroes are based out of New York, but it's a lot. Spider-Man, Daredevil, (everyone else from that series like Luke Cage/Jessica Jones/Iron Fist), Fantastic Four, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Batman's Gotham is based on New York too.
I think a big piece of this comes down to risk management and legal comfort, not creativity.
In Japan, there’s a long cultural relationship between fiction and real places. Using real neighborhoods, train stations, cafes, or schools isn’t automatically treated as an endorsement or a liability. It’s closer to saying, “This story happened here,” not “This place is sponsoring us.” That makes seichi junrei feel organic instead of transactional.
In the West, especially the US, name-dropping a real city or landmark opens a can of worms. Once you anchor a story to a real place, you also inherit expectations. How is the city portrayed? Is crime exaggerated? Are public services mocked? Is the place damaged or destroyed? Suddenly the question isn’t “Is this good storytelling?” but “Who is this offending, and could someone complain?”
And yeah, not every story paints its setting kindly. A city might love the free tourism until it’s shown as corrupt, unsafe, or decaying. From a studio’s perspective, fictional cities are safer. No permissions to negotiate, no angry city councils, no PR cleanup if audiences associate your show with a negative image.
There’s also a production pipeline issue. Western animation leans hard into writers’ rooms and long development cycles. Fictional towns give writers flexibility without needing consistency checks against real geography. Anime production often starts from manga, where the creator already knows the real place and builds the story around it. That authorial intent matters.
So I don’t think Western media is “allergic” to real locations so much as cautious. Japan treats real places as texture and atmosphere. The US treats them as potential liabilities.
Ironically, that caution might be what makes anime settings feel more grounded. When a place is real, the emotions stick. You can visit it. You can stand on the stairs. The story lingers.
And maybe that’s the tradeoff. Safety versus resonance.
Curious what others think, especially anyone with insight into animation law or production.
American film makers inspired by the work of classic Japanese directors have made films similarly portraying "ordinary" real life places -- like Jim Jarmusch in Paterson (Paterson, NJ). More mainstream movies like Blues Brothers used lots of real Chicago locations (though it's geography was pretty topsy-turvy ). But most American movies don't use the real locations. NY set movies shot mostly in Boston, Boston set movies mostly shot in places like Toronto, etc
Realistic western media that is set in a real location is usually filmed somewhere with tax incentives, like Georgia or Vancouver BC. So recognizable locations aren't really an option unless you have the budget to move your production team for a few shots. Or just green screen.
Meanwhile America is huge so local people may check out places from shows, but it's not as easy unless it's in a big city or tourist destination. Like the steps from Rocky or the diner from Seinfeld will always have people taking pictures. People even travel all the way to Washington state to visit locations from Twin Peaks. Those are live action shows, but for example Steven Universe takes locations from Delaware, and some people have taken comparison photos, but I don't think many people are travelling across the country to do so, because it's so expensive, takes a long time, and it's not a tourist destination. In Japan you can travel to almost anywhere in the country very easily in comparison. So creators in America don't see the same potential to go viral with real settings.
Also keeping the location fictional just makes things easier for the writers. No need to worry about something like setting the series in Idaho but then you want to do a beach episode. Like the Simpsons, if Springfield was a specific location, it could really limit the writers. By keeping it vague they can visit New York, have an airport, a stadium, have a huge gorge, be surrounded by water, whatever the episode needs.