The point is that restrictions on using photos of people, where they exist, are nothing to do with copyright, but rather with invasion of privacy. Ordinary law suggests that, in the absence of permission, you can use your renders of those scene files as you see fit, because you are not infringing copyright, you are not infringing trademarks, and you are not invading privacy. There is not yet a law that says you may not do anything at all with anything without a license. It isn't really right to blame the lawyers. The problem is more with businessmen who decide they have the opportunity to increase their profits if there was a law to prevent people from doing things they were previously allowed to do, and the politicans who will make those laws to order in return for "campaign contributions".