I just realized something: I think this particular lawsuit I want to tell you about right now is by far the most interesting thing I’ve ever encountered that has to do with the Gone in 60 Seconds movie franchise. I’m not saying this to discredit the any of movies, really – they’re fine for what they are, which, for the 2000 remake, seems to be Nicholas Cage doing that thing with his hands and lots of fast cars being driven around fast, fastly. These are movies that have cars at their core, which, in the case of Gone in 60 Seconds means one particular car especially: a Mustang named Eleanor. That’s what this lawsuit is all about: is Eleanor a character? Or just a car?
Over the course of the Gone in 60 Seconds franchise, which started back in 1974, the car that was called “Eleanor” was always a Ford Mustang, but not the same kind of Mustang. In the original movie, Eleanor was a 1971 Mustang Sportsroof – not a Mach 1 as is often thought, though the two cars are, admittedly, extremely similar.
You can see a lot of Eleanor the ’71 Mustang getting the crap driven out of her, along with what must be hundreds and hundreds of tons of Malaise-era American Iron getting the absolute holy hamsters beaten out of them in the trailer here:
The better-known Eleanor, though, is the one used in the 2000 remake of the movie, and is the one specifically discussed by the lawsuit, which I promise I’ll explain. This Eleanor is a Shelby GT500CR, a custom restomod built on the basis of a 1967 Mustang fastback by Classic Recreations. Fine, watch the trailer:
Okay, now that we’ve met the cars, let’s get into what this lawsuit is all about. Denice Halicki is the widow of stuntman and director H. B. Halicki, who did the original movie, and she is the current copyright holder to the movie series. She claims that reproduction “Eleanor”-type Mustangs built by Classic Recreations via Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. are in violation of her copyrights. This lawsuit has been going on for about 20 years now, and this May 27, 2025 ruling is just the latest battle in a long legal war.
Here’s how the lawsuit is summarized:
“Denice Halicki and others alleged that Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc., and Carroll Hall Shelby Trust’s “GT500CR” Ford Mustangs infringed Halicki’s a copyright in “Eleanor,” a collection of Mustangs featured across four films. The district court held on summary judgment that Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection. After a bench trial, the district court dismissed Halicki’s breach of contract claim based on a settlement agreement and denied Shelby’s request for a declaration that the GT-500CR did not infringe any of Halicki’s rights.”
As you can read, the decision was that the car known as Eleanor was not protected under any sort of character copyright protection, and the reasons why are where I think this gets really interesting. The summary goes on to state:
“Affirming the district court’s summary judgment, the panel held that under the Towle test, Eleanor was not entitled to character copyright protection because it (1) did not have conceptual qualities, (2) did not have consistent traits, and (3) was not especially distinctive.”
The Towle test? What is that? Those three answers give some hint: “(1) did not have conceptual qualities, (2) did not have consistent traits, and (3) was not especially distinctive,” and I bet that last one stung.
The Towle test is interesting; it comes from a 2011 lawsuit, DC Comics v. Mark Towle, where DC Comics sued Towle, who was building and selling Batmobile replicas. The lawsuit sought to prove that the Batmobile, while a car, still qualified as a “character” and was therefore subject to the protections a character is afforded. The court agreed with DC, and came up with these three questions to test if an object can be considered a character:
-
“The character must generally have physical as well as conceptual qualities.
-
The character must be sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears. It must display consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes, although the character need not have a consistent appearance.
-
The character must be especially distinctive and contain some unique elements of expression. It cannot be a stock character like a magician in standard magician garb.”[3]
Those are pretty insightful metrics for determining whether or not a car qualifies as a character! Some cars are very easy to define as a character, as they meet and exceed each of these qualifications. Think of Herbie the Love Bug, who, though he speaks no human language, nevertheless is able to communicate and make decisions and have actual agency. He has a distinct set of physical criteria (a 1963 white VW Beetle, racing stripes, the number 53), and is a specific character.
KITT, from Knight Rider is another easy example here, because he is clearly a character – KITT has dialogue and plot lines and everything, even beyond the distinctive looks and so on.
Other movie cars may be trickier, but can still be determined by the questions. The DeLorean time machine from Back to the Future, for example, qualifies because it has physical and conceptual qualities, distinctive physical traits, and “unique elements of expression,” which in this case can be the ability to travel through time when it hits 88 mph, something most off-the-lot DeLoreans were not able to achieve.
James Bond’s Aston Martin DB5 would qualify, too – it has such a distinct look, attributes, abilities, and purpose that it becomes a character of sorts in its own right, or at least an extension of Bond himself.
As you can see, even if a car isn’t anthropomorphized or sentient or doesn’t have agency, it can still be a “character,” according to the quite nuanced parameters defined by the Towle test.
A test that, it’s worth noting, Eleanor did not pass.
Eleanor is a particular type of Ford Mustang. An uncommon type, sure, but not one that has any especially unique conceptual qualities: it behaves and performs like any other expensive Mustang-based restomod. Physically, Eleanor Mustangs are not consistent over the movies in the series, with the early movies being an entirely different year and color and sharing almost nothing with the GT-500CR beyond the fact that they both started as cars called Ford Mustangs.
I tend to agree with the court’s ruling here, and I plan to remember the Towle test when I’m thinking about movie cars in general. It’s certain that the 2000 remake made the particular kind of Eleanor-style Mustang restomod very popular, but it feels like trying to claim a copyright on the car is a bit like if Warner Bros, who currently owns the character of Popeye, tried to sue the National Spinach Growers Consortium, claiming that canned spinach was a “character” in Popeye comics.
It’s an important aspect, sure, but a character? Not quite.
The same goes for the Eleanor Mustang. It’s a key element of the movies, sure, it’s associated with the franchise, no doubt, but that’s just not enough to make it something uniquely part of that work of fiction.
This is all pretty fascinating! Also, it means if you want to build your own Eleanor-type Mustang, have at it!
I like both movies and I like Foose’s work, but I’m not a fan of the 2000 remake Eleanor. It just looks silly. The stock 1967 is much better looking. In the first movie, to prove they weren’t all bad, they only stole cars that were insured. We all draw the line somewhere.
I watched the movie on a plane the other night. Still an enjoyable flick, but that Eleanor has aged like milk. It looked soo cool when the movie came out, but man, it got overhyped, overdone, and now just looks kinda like a bunch of aftermarket junk thrown on a car. I guess most early 2000s mods look that way now though.
Whichever designer/artist/director decided to make Herbie’s racing stripes different but proportional widths and put them off-center was (is?) a genius.
right? they’re such good stripes, for reasons that are not obvious
Off-center stripes go way back, and according to a mispelled Reddit post I found were first seen on GT350s a few years before Herbie came out. Another forum post of negligible provenance says that they went through the driver’s center line to help judge corners. Regardless, I remember clothing from WAY back that had off-center stripes and I’m not sure that the Love Bug was the first to use them. They’re certainly an all-time-all-time though.
Offcenter stripes have been around forever on race cars. The purpose I’ve heard was if a car gets balled up super bad, the rescue team knows which side the driver is on and can get to them quicker. So the stripe should ALWAYS be on the driver’s side, whichever side that is depending on country/rhd vs lhd.
It’s like if Warner Brothers tried to sue the Tasmanian Football team for calling themselves “The Tassie Devils” by claiming that the Tasmanian Devil (Sarcophilus Harrisii) is a “Character” in Loony Tunes…
oh wait
Whew *mops forehead* so it’s safe for me to continue work on my Beverly Hillblillies “California Or Bust” replica!
BTW, Torch, what kind of truck is that?
It was originally a 1921 Oldsmobile Roadster, with the body cut off and rebuilt as a pickup (done by a prior owner before the studio acquired it). It’s sometimes referred to as a Model 46A Light Eight with a 6.0L sidevalve Oakland V8, sometimes claimed to be a Model 43A with the 3.7L Olds I4. They eventually built like 3 or 4 replicas of the original truck over the course of the series, so it’s possible they might have used both 43s and 46s
I’ve just never given 2 shits about this car. It’s a plot device for a fun, but fairly rubbish movie. Maybe I’m odd.
Definitely agree. And I say that knowing I’d LOVE to get my hands on an “Eleanor” Mustang… and then start removing the bits I don’t like. It’s like 90% perfect IMO
Terrible movie and a genuinely unappealing-looking car. No idea why so many people are obsessed with these.
It’s a fantastic airplane movie. You don’t really need to hear the dialog to know what’s happening, and it will keep you entertained enough to distract from the screaming babies. Aquaman is another good one that for reasons I don’t understand is on the catalog of every airlines IFE options.
Harsh but fair. 🙂
Many DeLoreans sold in the US had a speedo that only went to 85, so…
https://support.delorean.com/AvatarHandler.ashx?fid=8388&key=4131254317
85 mph speedometers were mandated by the federal government at the time and actually have nothing to do with the top speeds of any vehicles that were equipped with them, including the Delorean.
True, but for many cars of the max 85 era, especially the early part, it was still an aspirational goal.
Oh I know. I’ve owned my share. I think the ’83 Delta 88 was probably the worst of them. I can’t remember exactly how slow it was but it wore the piston rings down and was spewing black smoke at 50,000 miles.
“Yeah well that’s like, you’re opinion, man.” – some character.
By that test, the Bluesmobile (both versions) is definitely a character.
Has David watched The Blues Brothers yet? I caught part of it the other night on basic cable and was reminded of how good a movie it is.
Dr. Performative Outrage and I watched it with our daughters, 10 and 14, a couple of months ago. They LOVED it — especially the 10 year-old. The long, slow build in physical humor to the absurdity of the Nazis’ thousand-foot drop from the unfinished highway bridge is a work of genius, as is everyone’s instant silver sequined tuxedoes when Cab Calloway (I love that man) takes the stage. Also made me nostalgic for a time when Nazis could be agreed upon go-to cartoonish villains (see also: Hogan’s Heroes, ‘Allo ‘Allo)
I feel there are MANY (most?) comedies from my GenX childhood that have aged terribly (e.g. much of John Hughes’ work…) and my kids would be appalled by. But our kids LOVE The Blues Brothers and have basically become evangelists for it to GenZ. It seems to me to have aged stunningly well.
I’m shocked by how cringey those movies are today.
Probably my favorite movie ever. Seen it a thousand times, still catch something new each and every time, the mark of a creative and thoughtful production.
As a kid who loved comedy, i would write down the iconic lines from the movie, wearing out the vhs tape rewinding to catch a hilarious line or interaction or scene detail.
As a shithead youth, everytime i used to get pulled over, i’d run thru my head:
“Shit.”
“What?”
“Rollers.”
“Naw.”
“Yup.”
“Shit.”
Classic. Along with HUNDREDS of other great lines and details. Blues mobile is definitely a character, especially since it was made before catalytic converters, so it’ll run good on regular gas.
Carroll Shelby Licensing getting sued for copyright infringement is objectively hilarious though.
Interesting how it worked out. I would have thought the Batmobile would have qualified more as a trademark or design copyright instead of arguing it as a character, but I’m obviously not a lawyer. That said, I agree with the conclusion and this was great to read as it now looks like I’ve had several vehicle characters in my books. I always considered one to be kind of a nebulous semi-character, not sentient, but with traits that set it apart. Since it would pass the Towle test, it would be a full-on character, as would a boat that I didn’t even think of in that manner.
I’d like to add that, in my opinion, there are two distinct Eleanors: the pristine version when it’s stolen, and the totally fecked version after being jumped off a flatbed.
What is someone created a post-crash Eleanor? Would they get sued also?
Pretty sure at least a few Eleanor replicas have been brought to Cars & Coffee events over the years, has to be at least a couple crashed ones out there by now
That’s why I don’t go to Cars & Coffee. I don’t wanna die!
It would still be the same movie if the car were a Batmobile instead of an Eleanor. However, would the Batmobile still be considered a character if cast as Eleanor in the 60 Second movies? I think that’s a good question which probably should have been raised, but IANAL.
Note that I do agree with the ruling. The Batmobile never had factory body panels, mods, scoops, and such notwithstanding, and thus was an original design and not merely a restomod like Eleanor.
To be fair, the original on-screen Batmobile was a Lincoln Futura concept car painted black. Prior to that, the Batmobile was a normal (?) 40’s sedan with a bat mask on the front.
Good points.
Also agree with the ruling (and feel free to check out Reels & Wheels podcast episodes on both versions of the movie and The Junk Man, where we also talk about the lawsuits). The whole point of the movie isn’t that the car is a custom, it’s that all the cars get nicknamed after women and the Mustang just happens to be Eleanor and that particular car happens to be the hardest one to steal for the dumbest reasons.
We just recently did the original Gone in 60 Seconds on Reels & Wheels, and be warned- the car chase will wear you out. It’s more than half the runtime of the movie! It’s also hard to watch the original because Halicki’s protagonist is so unlikeable.
For me, it’s hard to watch for the pacing. What I liked about it is the protagonist is a dirtbag car thief and is portrayed as such. The horrible remake had a nonsense plot where we were supposed to see Nic Cage’s character, NIC CAGE!, as some kind of noble hero.
Agreed the remake is unwatchable and an abomination.
Eh, it’s fine for me. You don’t watch Nicholas Cage without knowing what you’re getting.
The cheese factor is quite high.
I think his remake of Wicker Man is actually better than the original though. That first movie is just awful.
Not the bees!
That WB/Popeye/Spinach metaphor is a bit odd considering the existence of Popeye brand spinach.
How I know I’m getting old: I would have guessed the remake was 2010-2012. Not 2000. Wow.
Jeez dude, “ask your doctor if a placebo is right for you, we all know what great memory jelly fish have”. And I didn’t have a color TV till 7.
I didn’t have color till 9. I thought the Enterprise crew all wore the same color!
I’m not surprised it turned out this way. Suing over Eleanor would be small step away from Donald P. Bellisario suing over Magnum’s Ferrari. (Before they destroyed it in the remake, that is.)
Should’ve used a Corvette instead. Somehow each and every one of them is some mythical combination of color/options that surely it’s an easy case to call it a unique enough car.
I know what I stole!
“Just because you ARE a character, doesn’t mean you HAVE character.”
As the current administration proves.
I’d rather have a KITT and a Herbie.
Did anyone else always think the “GT500CR” was just kind of weird and awkward-looking and just never get all the hype? If its just me, I’ll shut up, but I just really never got it.
It’s ugly AF, the worst kind of retromodding and the original movie was much better (I’ll save the argument for why), though neither were great movies.
It is awful-looking. It’s a very dated build, the Halibrand wheels look like ass blown up to 17″ or whatever, the body kit does not flow with the original lines in any way, it’s just not good. But for some reason, people have latched onto this car as the ideal classic Mustang. It’s bizarre.
Replicas of that car have been way overdone and then some. I worked for over ten years in a custom-car-adjacent business. Every so often customer would come up and tell me he had a really, really special car to show to me. More often than not it was a Mustang in that style. At a certain point I only thought “Not another Eleanor”, when someone started telling me about his special project..
Ha, yeah *eye roll* Reminded of how several years ago (pre-pandemic) a friend’s extremely wealthy and extremely boomer uncle died and left behind several restomods in his garage, which included the obligatory tri-five Chevy, but the one he was most proud of and bragged about the most was a restomod 1967 Mustang fastback; he would talk about how he had put 60 thousand dollars into it (which was done a couple decades ago.) Apparently when going through the estate my friend’s cousins found that to be indeed the case and not an exaggeration, good grief.
At the local cars & coffee events (in East Tennessee) there are always multiple such Mustangs; they seem to have replaced the tri-five Chevys at such events though the Chevys still reign at the street rod shows. Oh well, to each their own & different strokes & all that.
I remember some Eleanor project car being seized for copyright infringement or something.
Was that subject to this same ruling? I think it was a youtuber. I’ll see if I can find it.
Gee, who wrote about this before. And it was the same woman copyright holder who had the project halted.
https://www.jalopnik.com/youtuber-building-an-eleanor-mustang-replica-has-car-ta-1843863689/
I wonder if they have any recourse against her.
If all you have is the Gone in 60 Seconds IP, I guess you have to enforce it wherever you can. But it’s not really that interesting. It may be better to diversify your holdings a bit.
The main problem he had was not having the many thousands of dollars required to fight the case.
There are 4 movies?!?!
That was news to me, too.
Not exactly, but Halicki made three more movies with the same cast and crew and plots generally related to car theft.
Eleanor definitely shows up in The Junk Man, still all beat up. And in the post-credits scenes from the original, the beat up can has “Eleanor” spray painted all over it.
Is it much different from John Wick’s mustang that got all beat up?
Right? I only saw the Cage/Jolie one. And it seemed pretty dumb.
The trailers, especially the first one, were fun to watch though.
It seems that car pursuits, even the OJ slow speed pursuit never get old. I was at a lobby bar in Los Angeles, and they had a policy that any time there was a pursuit on one of the local TV stations, prices reverted to happy hour regardless of what time of the night it was.
From Goldfinger to Ronin to even relatively newer stuff, like George Clooney in The Peacemaker, which (checks notes) OMG was made in ’97, and oh, I am so old, The Bourne Ultimatum, I can watch that stuff all day. They certainly elevate my pulse rate.
I never got into the Fast and Furious franchise. I think the difference is the action in the movies I cited seemed plausible. The F&F stuff didn’t.
Meanwhile – The Wagon Queen Family Truckster would definitely be considered a character.
That’s gotta sting.
Yup, the mods and unique name seal it. It ain’t your uncle Walt’s Country Squire, that’s for sure.
But as I read this, the T/A in “Smokey and the Bandit” would NOT pass the character test.
I thought of that too…
Pontiac churned out the Bandit duplicates like a Xerox machine – trading on the product placement – so it kinda renders the point moot.
That particular brand of boomer who walk into Barrett-Jackson with $300,000 in their pocket and a desire to show how much they stand out have never been more shaken as they are now.
There’s always about 10,000 68-72 Chevelles to choose from. And somehow, they’re all SSs.