"The longtime holder of the copyright for the modified Ford Mustangs and Shelby G.T.500s that appeared in the various "Gone in 60 Seconds" movies has lost ownership of that copyright after a California court ruled this week that the cars known to film fans as Eleanor don't count as characters and no longer deserve such copyright protection.

While the ruling appears to specifically address Denice Halicki's Eleanor copyright claim and does not apply to any other TV and movie cars, Denice Halicki noted on her website that the 2008 Ninth Circuit ruling set "new copyright law protection for car character's look/image as they appear in their movies, television and comic books against infringers." She specifically noted that the 2008 ruling was cited in a subsequent Ninth Circuit ruling in 2015 that upheld DC Comics's copyright claims for the Batmobile, a ruling that determined the Batmobile was a character entitled to copyright protection because it was a character that was "especially distinctive," "sufficiently delineated," and displayed "consistent, widely identifiable traits." This is referred to as the Daniels test."

www.hemmings.com/stories/litigation-eleanor-loses-copyright-protections/

I think the Batmobile is sufficiently unique whereas Eleanor really isn't.

The original Eleanor looked like a stock Mustang, no way it could be copyrighted.
The money in building the newer "Nick Cage" Eleanor is probably attractive to the Halicki estate, but I don't know what involvement they had in the re-make, if any.

In any case, I've seen enough of them already, though they're popular at auctions.

So, you agree with the rulings. Where they went wrong with the Eleanor thing was that they applied it to several different cars. Whereas the Batmobile is a one and only distinct model.

So is the General Lee copyrighted? There are a LOT of replicas out there!

second part of the test.
The second prong presents an insurmountable hurdle for Daniels. Towle requires that a character must be “sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears.” Id. Although a character that has appeared in multiple productions or iterations “need not have a consistent appearance,” it “must display consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes” such that it is recognizable whenever it appears. Id. Consistently recognizable characters like Godzilla or James Bond, whose physical characteristics may change over various iterations, but who maintain consistent and identifiable character traits and attributes across various productions and adaptations, meet the test. See Tono Co. v. William Morrow & Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 1215 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (finding that Godzilla is consistently a “pre-historic, fire-breathing, gigantic dinosaur alive and well in the modern world”),Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Corp., 900 F. Supp. 1287, 1296 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (noting that James Bond has consistent traits such as “his cold-bloodedness; his overt sexuality; his love of
8 DANIELS V.THE WALT DISNEY CO. martinis ‘shaken, not stirred;’ his marksmanship; his ‘license to kill’ and use of guns; his physical strength; his sophistication”). By contrast, a character that lacks a core set of consistent and identifiable character traits and attributes is not protectable, because that character is not immediately recognizable as the same character whenever it appears. See, e.g.,Olson, 855 F.2d at 1452–53 (holding that television characters from “Cargo” are too “lightly sketched” to be independently protectable by copyright).

so you always recognize the batmobile even though it is different in each era of comics, movies and cartoons.
you always recognize the general lee even though it could be a 68 or 69 charger. the paint scheme is always the same.

elenor being different in all 4 movies, and having no specific mods to make it identifiable across movies makes it not pass these tests.

I would argue the fall guy's truck, back to the future pickup and magnum's ferrari would also fail this test. because they were common looking vehicles.
the paint jobs on the general lee, a-team van, the gran torino in starsky and hutch and even the pacer in Wayne's world would set them a part enough to pass this test.
KITT however would pass the character test as it changed through 3 different iterations and even a brand change.

Huh?
"Back to the Future" featured a DeLorean, not a truck.
I don't recall the Eleanor 65-66 Mustang being in more than one movie.
KITT was always a Pontiac Trans Am in the TV show.

I think he meant Marty's pickup from the original movie.

Dave, I neither agree nor disagree with the rulings.
I'm merely supposing that a cut of the sales proceeds was the inspiration.
Not that that's a bad thing, it's just intriguing.
None of it affects me in the slightest.
Good point about the Gen Lee and for that matter, the other "iconic" movie/TV cars.
I suppose the names could be registered, but that wouldn't stop the clones, only the names, I think.

There are several batmobiles, all different and only the very first one (1943) was a pedestrian model. https://www.hobbytalk.com/threads/the-first-on-screen-batmobile-1943.401227/

Batman cars from 1960 to date.

As for my agreement, or not, I was just speculating on why the judge rules that way, nothing more.

Eleanor really isn't all that tricked out.

As for the General Lee, it's essentially a paint job. That might be copyrightable due to artistic content, imo.

Wasn't it that copyright that got a youtubers clone car seized or destroyed?

marty's new pickup at the end of the first one has been copied a lot.
kitt changed twice in the original series.
mostly year model changes, but yes it was a transam both times.
it was rebooted in the early 2010's and was a mustang since pontiac was dead when it came on the air.
the talking computer part of it makes both kitt and could be argued that it was a character.

This is all about the money. Licensing. If whoever built or owns the particular vehicle doesn't seek to copyright it or to protect that copyright, then no harm, no foul.

Here I always thought "Eleanor" was a 68 Mustang GT 350 (or was it 500)?
The Mustang at the end of the movie was a 65 or 66, but the one stolen and wrecked was a 68.

The Eleanor in the original, and still the best, Gone In 60 Seconds, was a 1973 fastback Mustang.

Sort of. It *was* a '71 Mach 1, but since it took so long to actually make the movie - Toby thought it best to re-dress the "Star Cars" as current models, so as not to make the movie look dated upon release.
That's why Eleanor wears 1973 Mustang clothes and why Jill the Red Challenger has 1973 grille and tail panel but still wears her 1970/1971 side markers.

The "A" car for Eleanor was quite a machine. NASCAR-spec Roll Cage, front and rear frame reinforcements, NASCAR-spec fuel cell; 5-point racing harness, fiberglass racing bucket seat and "supposedly" a 500-horsepower 351 mated to a C6 and a rear with 4.11 or 4.44 gears.

That thing must've been SCREAMING at 80-90 mph.

On the other hand though.... this could mean good news for fans of the Original Gone in 60 Seconds.
If Denice is trying to scrape the barrel for more money, maybe she'll release the un-cut/un-rated "pre-release" version of the film that has tons of deleted scenes and explains the plot a little better?

We can only hope.

So, apparently this was the Halicki estate vs the Shelby Trust ?

https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a42209132/shelby-estate-wins-eleanor-mustang-copyright-lawsuit/?