(afterburner blasting)
- Plenty of us have fallen in love with cars through movies,
(upbeat music)
whether it was the "Fast and the Furious,"
(tires squealing)
"James Bond,"
(tires squealing)
or my personal favorite, "Herbie Fully Loaded."
(tire bouncing)
I love you Lindsay.
(antenna vibrating)
Movies can be a great showcase for cars.
Some fans fall in love with a movie car so much
that they decide to build a replica,
but what happens when your, "Jurassic Park," Jeep
or your love bug goes from a fun fan project,
to copyright infringement.
In case you've been living under a rock,
our friends over at B is for Build, are finding out.
In May of this year, the channel had their Mustang
body swap project seized, and then they had to take down
all the videos of the car.
So why did that happen?
Well, I'll tell you.
Chris, over at B is for Build is an awesome guy,
and makes cool videos that I love.
I watch him all the time.
This year, he and his shop were working on a ground up
resto-mod of a 1967 Fastback Mustang.
They took a 2015 Mustang chassis, engine, suspension,
all the cool modern stuff, and fitted the 67's
body panels around it to make a perfect blend
of classic Mustang looks and modern performance.
But one thing about the car caused a lot of problems.
They named it Eleanor.
Eleanor is the name given to the silver and black
67 Fastback Mustang in the 2000 movie, "Gone in 60 Seconds."
The copyright of that name also owned by a company
called Eleanor Licensing, LLC.
The LLC claimed that B is for Build,
was infringing on their copyright and they had the channel
take down every video featuring the Mustang,
and then they took away the Mustang.
- No (crying)
- It turns out the rights holders for the Eleanor name
had a history of doing this sort of thing.
They even sued Carroll Shelby and won.
They basically own anything named Eleanor
as it pertains to "Gone in 60 Seconds," or Mustang.
That's a crazy amount of legal power.
That basically means that any Mustang,
regardless of what it looks like,
can be seen as an infringement on the LLC's copyright
if it gets named Eleanor.
And to show how they have the grounds to do that,
we need to look at the original Eleanor.
(engine roaring)
No, the original.
(upbeat music)
The main rights holder to Eleanor and "Gone in 60 Seconds,"
is the widow of H.B. Halicki, who was the creator
of the original, "Gone in 60 Seconds," in 1974,
not the film you may know with Nic cage from 2000.
The 1974 film featured a yellow, 1971 Mustang
Mach One named Eleanor.
Look, the movie wasn't a big hit,
but because Eleanor exists as two different Mustangs,
this copyright seems to have grown to encompass any Mustang
named Eleanor, since the character
is not a specific Mustang.
So now 46 years later, a project car
that doesn't resemble the original,
isn't being sold for profit, and isn't finished,
gets taken from its builder, all for having the same name.
And it's not like cars even have names.
I mean, I know car people like to name their cars,
but it's not like it's etched into the body
like a VIN number.
How do you prove in court that a car is named something?
Do you put it in the middle of the room
and call out names, and see which one that responds to?
No.
And if you don't name the car, Eleanor,
do you have the right to own a pepper gray metallic 67,
Shelby GT 500?
A car and paint color that were both available
long before the 2000 movie was made?
I know it might be a bit ridiculous,
but the name makes a difference.
It changes this build project from a car, to a character.
As a car, the design patent for the 1967 Mustang Fastback
lasted for 14 years, which means that if you built a replica
of a Fastback and sold it with no badges,
Ford may not be able to stop you,
but a copyright is different.
It can last for 90 years from the creation of the character.
So we could be seeing lawsuits like this around Eleanor
for another 44 years.
You know, I have to wonder if this company is just sitting
on a warehouse full of incomplete Eleanor replicas.
That's gonna be one crazy episode of "Storage Wars."
It's sucks that B is for Build's resto-mod Mustang project
was taken down from YouTube.
Eleanor or not, I thought the idea of the swap
was just really cool.
And if you did too, don't worry B is for Build
is doing it again with a 67 coup this time around.
So go check it out, those guys are awesome,
and I love their channel.
They deserve more subs.
Okay, so the, "Gone in 60 Seconds," camp
is pretty litigious, but what other movie cars?
Is this something that could happen with any replica?
("Batman Theme")
Gotham Garage is a custom fabrication and hot rod shop
based in Temecula, California,
that built up a business building and selling replicas
of the 1966 Adam West Batmobile.
(Batmobile roaring)
They use a mold pulled from one of the original cars
and drop a fiberglass shell onto the chassis
of a C4 Corvette.
That sounds really bad ass.
Gotham Garage owner, Mark Towle loved building these cars,
but he also had his eye on the 1989, Tim Burton Batmobile.
He got a mold, waited 14 years for the design patent
to expire, and then started building
those Batmobiles as well.
And unlike B is for Build, these weren't resto-mods,
these were full blown replicas,
with screen accurate interiors,
working canopies, and even machine guns
that would pop out of hood.
But that didn't stop DC comics and Warner Brothers
from coming after the little SoCal shop.
The court case made headlines in the prop making
and movie replica communities,
especially because other builders were worried
about their own projects.
Towle's defense hinged upon an interesting caveat
in copyright law.
Copyright is for creative works and does not allow
for useful articles to be copyrighted.
Towle argues that a car is a useful article,
and not a character?
The argument looked good when it came to the 66 Batmobile,
especially when you compare that one to the Ford Futura
concept car on which it was based.
There was not a lot added to it to make it a Batmobile,
but the argument fell apart when the conversation turned
to the '89 Batmobile, which is not based on any existing car
and has an iconic design work all over it,
that doesn't serve any function or purpose,
other than to look the part.
Gotham Garage lost the case unfortunately,
and was asked to stop selling Batmobiles,
and to destroy their molds.
Customers that had cars that were in progress
were left in a tough spot,
but Gotham Garage was able to sell a few unique,
custom hot rods to those loyal customers,
and keep the business going.
Gotham Garage is actually still up and running,
and they've got a series on Netflix
that you should check out.
It's called, "Rust to Riches," and when you take
into account that they used to build Batmobiles,
they're builds, start to make a lot more sense.
They are ridiculous.
So it looks like the Batmobile is a character as well,
and I guess that makes sense because while it doesn't
have a name like Eleanor,
it still has a unique title, the Batmobile.
Now I'm no lawyer, and even though court cases
can hinge on precedent, there's always a chance
that a bad decision gets made.
So something qualitative, like how much of a character
or useful article is your car, literally ends up being
decided on a case by case basis, it seems.
A car having a name seems to be a good indicator
that it can be copyrighted as a character.
But what about a movie car that doesn't have a name?
(upbeat music)
The junk covered DeLorean from 1985's, "Back to the Future,"
is one of the most recognizable cars in the world.
It has inspired plenty of replica builds
and is one of the only reasons most people know
about the DMC 12 at all.
So are these road going replica is getting seized as well?
Well, no, not really.
Take a look at Bob's Prop Shop.
They've built and sold nearly 30,
"Back to the Future," DeLoreans.
They've taken them to charity events,
rented them out for weddings, even got the cast to sign
some of them.
They're making money off of someone else's IP,
just like Gotham Garage was,
and they aren't the only fabricator doing this.
Plenty of other time machine builders use the DeLoreans
to make a profit.
So why aren't DeLoreans getting seized?
It could be that because the DeLorean
in "Back to the Future," never gets a name,
it's only ever referred to as the DeLorean,
or the time machine.
While it is stylized, it's a tool that the characters used.
It's a useful article, 'cause people are still
using the logos and IP like Mr. Fusion.
Also let's face it, if a company like universal wanted
to sue you for copyright infringement,
they'd be able to bleed you dry with any legal fees
before you get anywhere near a courtroom.
No, I think there's something else going on here.
I'd like to think that the rights holders
for, "Back to the Future," are just cool that way.
They don't see copyright infringement that cuts
into their profits.
They see it as an opportunity for fans to get to show love
for their franchise and by doing so,
they fall more in love with that franchise.
By not suing any of these builders,
Universal basically waived their rights to sue
in the future.
They're not protecting their copyright.
At least not to the same extent that others have.
That could have been a bad decision
for the, "Back to the Future," rights holders,
but as it turns out, it's a long play,
and it turns out to have paid off for Universal.
Around 2012, Universal wanted to restore the original,
"Back to the Future," time machine.
The A-car as it's known, was parked on the back lot
at Universal Studios, Hollywood and had fallen
into major disrepair.
They set about doing a full museum restoration
and the community was there to help them.
Parts of the restoration were much easier
because the research had already been done by the fans.
Certain components were sourced from people
building replicas, and even fans who hadn't
built a time machine could donate to the bill.
Our writer Joey, actually donated to the restoration
and he's got a few of the pieces that needed to be replaced
in a display box.
Probably cost a lot of money (laughing).
All of this was done in time for the 30th anniversary
of the film in 2015, the year Marty McFly
went back to the future.
So what are the rules for building a replica car?
I guess it all comes down to the rights holders themselves,
and if they want to pursue litigation or not.
It seems the real problem is the fact that these copyrights
last for so freaking long now.
90 years, are you serious?
And this isn't problem isolated to the car world.
When copyright was first established in 1790,
it was a max of 28 years, but the copyright term
has been extended multiple times,
and one of the main contributing factors to that
is Disney's copyright on Steamboat Willie,
the first Mickey Mouse cartoon,
which is currently under copyright until 2023.
And if history repeats itself, that copyright term
will be extended yet again,
not only protecting Mickey Mouse for a longer time,
but Eleanor as well.
Disney now owns the rights to a huge portion
of our popular culture, and nobody outside the company
can show off their interpretation of these characters
and stories without fear of getting sued,
which flies in the face of art history,
wherein our entire human experience is built off
interpreting and changing existing art.
I'm going a little too into the weeds here,
but the B is for Build case is a perfect example.
Not only was Chris interpreting a character,
but he was making it better and pushing a car,
we collectively love, forward,
but it got taken away from us.
Now I don't want to unfairly demonize
Eleanor Licensing, LLC.
Truly, okay?
They've exercised their right
to protect the copyright they own.
A few months ago, we talked about Ferrari sending Deadmau5
a cease and desist over his Ferrari.
These are different cases, but the principle is the same.
If you let just one person infringe on the copyright,
that opens you up to more people doing it,
more easily in the future.
And if you depend on that copyright for income,
then you kind of have no choice to defend it.
What we should be focusing on, is the laws
that let these ridiculous legal decisions,
like taking Chris's car away, happen in the first place,
and that's when we'll see things change.
Until then though, I'll be right here,
hanging out with you guys and reading those comments,
so leave one for me, please.
I'm alone in my apartment.
Follow Donut Media on all social media @donutmedia.
Follow me @NolanJSykes.
Subscribe If you'd like to see more.
Be kind, I'll see you next time.