

Ford Mustang Eleanor From Gone In 60 Seconds Can't Be Copyrighted (caranddriver.com) 33
The Ninth Circuit has ruled that the 1967 Ford Mustang fastback nicknamed "Eleanor" in Gone in 60 Seconds is a film prop rather than a protectable character. The panel said the car fails all three Towle test prongs, so it cannot receive standalone copyright protection. sinij writes: The ruling states that the Mustang doesn't pass tests that would qualify it as a character. In the past, studio aggressively went after builders for any Mustang that even remotely approximated Eleanor, making it a hassle to restomod classic Mustangs.
Some background would be helpful (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Some background would be helpful (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
the only significance is that the car IS a character in the movie. she wouldn't be able to even attempt a suit otherwise.
I've only seen the last movie but how is the car a character? Other than the humans referring to the car as having character, it is just a car in the movie. Unlike other cars that are characters, Kitt (Knight Rider), Herbie (The Love Bug), and Christine, it does not speak nor perform any actions that is not standard for a car. The only thing it does is it stalled at an inconvenient time for Nicolas Cage. That's all the "personality" I was able to gather from the car.
Re: (Score:2)
Character copyright protects things that the basic copyright doesn't. And a character copyright would belong to whoever owns the movie, where the copyright on the appearance of the Mustang belongs to Ford.
They're grasping at straws. Unsuccessfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, under some conditions an unique movie car *would* be copyrightable. The case where the car is effectively a character is just one of the ways you can argue a car to be copyrightable.
Copyright is supposed to protect original creative expression, not ideas or functional items, which may be protected by *other* forms of intellectual property like trademark or patents. This is because copyright protects *creative expression*. It doesn't protect ideas, or functional items. A car is a functional item,
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Are you going to copyright that concept?
Or just the shape of your asshole?
Re: Some background would be helpful (Score:2)
Weirdness (Score:2)
So they think they can bolt a body kit on to a stock Mustang and own the likeness of that Mustang?
Can I re-edit Gone in 60 Seconds and claim ownership of that? No? That's odd.
Re: (Score:2)
That is precisely why they're claiming character copyright.
On par for Found-On-Road-Dead (Score:4, Interesting)
In the past, studio aggressively went after builders for any Mustang that even remotely approximated Eleanor, making it a hassle to restomod classic Mustangs.
They pulled the same kind of bullshit in the past [justia.com] for any website that mentioned "Jaguar" - even websites that was exclusively about the animal, an nothing automotive.
Herbie the Love Bug? (Score:3, Funny)
...Is Herbie copyrightable as a character?
Re: Herbie the Love Bug? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Towlie test prongs (Score:1)
2. Do you want to get high?
Re:Herbie the Love Bug? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Paint him on a mural and see how fast Disney sends you legal notices. https://www.snopes.com/fact-ch... [snopes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Or Christine?
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I am forgotten [pinimg.com].
Re: (Score:2)
I am forgotten.
Understand, 1971 is to 2025 as 1917 was to 1971.
T
Re: (Score:1)
There are plenty of Herbie paint jobs (Score:2)
I've seen lots of Beetles in full Herbie livery in Australia and the Philippines. Disney doesn't seem to go after people for just making beetles resemble Herbie.
Re: (Score:1)
Easy workaround (Score:3)