Can a car be a copyright protected character? That is the question at the heart of a long-running battle over a collection of customized Ford Mustangs affectionately (and commercially) known as “Eleanor.” According to a newly issued opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the answer is no. The court held this week that the various Mustangs depicted as “Eleanor” in four different films, including the 1974 cult classic Gone in 60 Seconds and the 2000 remake, are not eligible for copyright protection. The court’s reasoning: Eleanor is more “prop” than “personality” and does not meet the legal threshold for a protectable character under copyright law.
The Background in Brief: At the center of the car-centric copyright case is Denice Halicki, widow of the original Gone in 60 Seconds filmmaker H.B. Halicki, who owns rights in the Gone in 60 Seconds franchise and various merchandising assets, including trademark rights in the “Eleanor” name for use in connection with a sleek, gray-and-black Shelby GT-500 Mustang.
Following the remake’s release in 2000, entities affiliated with famed automotive designer Carroll Shelby collaborated with a custom auto shop to release a Ford Mustang “GT-500E,” a high-performance homage that bore more than a passing resemblance to Eleanor. Halicki sued, arguing that the “E” (in GT-500E) stood for Eleanor and that the car unlawfully copied the design and branding of Eleanor.
That lawsuit was settled in 2009, with the defendants agreeing to refrain from manufacturing cars with features unique to Eleanor. But in the years that followed, Shelby’s camp commissioned another Mustang variant – the “GT-500CR” – leading to renewed legal tensions, namely, the lawsuit at hand, which Shelby Licensing filed against Halicki in 2020.
In furtherance of its case, Shelby argued that it “own[s], and has owned since approximately 1967, the trademarks and trade dress associated with the GT500,” and sought a declaration from the court that its GT-500CR does not infringe any rights in Eleanor. In particular, Shelby maintained that the GT-500CR does not make use of any “Eleanor-specific” design elements, such as the sculpted hood or inset headlights, or word marks in which Halicki has rights.
Halicki fired back with her own claims of copyright infringement and breach of the parties’ earlier settlement agreement, and named Classic Recreations, the car customization shop that was producing the GT-500CR, as a defendant.
When the case landed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Judge Mark Scarsi dismissed most of Halicki’s claims at the summary judgment stage, finding that despite her argument that Eleanor is more than justa getaway car and is instead a character in her own right, “Eleanor is not entitled to standalone copyright protection [as a character] as a matter of law.”
Characters Under Copyright Law
So, what does it take to secure copyright protection for a character? According to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the law protects fictional characters if they have both physical and conceptual qualities, are consistently recognizable, and display traits that make them “distinctive.” The three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit found that Eleanor falls short.
“Eleanor has no anthropomorphic traits,” Judge Jeremy Kernodle wrote for the court. “The car never acts with agency or volition; rather, it is always driven by the film’s protagonists.” It does not speak, think, or interact with characters in any meaningful way. Even the idea that the car has a personality – like when its engine sputters as the protagonist’s girlfriend climbs in – is “pure speculation,” according to the court.
The court also found that Eleanor lacks consistent visual traits across the films. Sometimes she appears as a yellow-and-black Fastback; other times a gray Shelby or a rusty fixer-upper. And although Halicki argued that Eleanor is always hard to steal or prone to damage, the court found those features too inconsistent to amount to character traits. “Nothing distinguishes [Eleanor] from any number of sports cars appearing in car-centric action films,” the court stated.
Contract Questions & a Partial Win for Shelby
While Halicki’s copyright claims were rejected outright, her contract arguments received closer scrutiny. The core question was whether the parties’ 2009 settlement agreement barred Shelby from making any car that resembled Eleanor or just cars that copied specific, agreed-upon features (like the Eleanor hood or lights). The court sided with Shelby: The agreement only covered specific visual elements, not the Eleanor “concept” as a whole.
Still, the Ninth Circuit found fault in one part of the district court’s ruling. It reversed the denial of declaratory relief for Shelby, noting that a declaration stating the GT-500CR does not infringe Halicki’s rights would help resolve ongoing disputes – especially since Halicki had publicly suggested that litigation might continue.
“A declaration will clarify and settle the legal relations at issue” and give Shelby some assurance that its car will not land them in court again over Eleanor, Kernodle stated. The case now returns to the district court for a more narrowly tailoredruling on that issue.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The Eleanor case highlights the limits of copyright when it comes to design-centric works that approach, but do not meet the legal bar for character status, as well as the legal gray area that may exist for cars like Eleanor, which are branded and beloved, but not quite characters in the eyes of the law. For filmmakers, designers, and merchandisers, the message is clear: not everything you name or market as iconic qualifies for standalone copyright protection.
The case is Carroll Shelby Licensing Inc. v. Halicki, 23-3731 (9th Cir.).
Share
