The cars and bikes thread!

[geoffbot]

This is ridiculous

Someone ('B is for Build') on YouTube was sued for building an Eleanor lookalike due to copyright...

Wtf. So now you're not allowed to make a car that looks like that.

https://youtu.be/raQ5OtZ4eNQ

[Raza]

This is ridiculous

Someone ('B is for Build') on YouTube was sued for building an Eleanor lookalike due to copyright...

Wtf. So now you're not allowed to make a car that looks like that.

https://youtu.be/raQ5OtZ4eNQ

I don’t understand. Something doesn’t sound right here.

Copyright is generally intended to protect creative works—writings, paintings, sculptures, musical pieces, films, et al. I’ve never seen copyright be attributed to a car design, no matter how beautiful it is. Two things in IP law protect cars, patent and trademark. I can see copyright being issued if something is so uniquely designed, but it seems weird to me that it’s protecting a car that isn’t even an original car.

The Eleanor of the 2000 Gone in Sixty Seconds is based on the 1967 Shelby GT500. Eleanor is not a “car” per se, it’s a code name given so if anyone hears the names over the radio, it doesn’t sound like they’re stealing cars. The Eleanor was a custom build for the movie. And, as the guy in the video points out, this is different from the Eleanor of the original movie.

After some quick Googling, this seems to be all true, but there’s some janky ass logic the court must be using to uphold it. If you told me she sued over trademark and therefore they couldn’t call it Eleanor, that makes sense to me. But how can you copyright a design that’s in itself based on the design of another car that’s named after the car you actually own the copyright on?

At what point does this design become different enough to not violate the copyright? Get rid of the double light at the front? Change the shade of gray? Change the color altogether? What? I’d love to read the court opinion on this.


Something interesting about the copyright and trademark holder Denice Halicki. She was both 3rd cousin and former lover of Robert Kardashian. After Kardashian and Jenner split, he got together with Halicki.

[geoffbot]

I know right? Bs. They won though... This must be your heaven - muscle cars and law!

[Raza]

I know right? Bs. They won though... This must be your heaven - muscle cars and law!

It is! Someone hire me to be on this case!

[gnuyork]

I don’t understand. Something doesn’t sound right here.

Copyright is generally intended to protect creative works—writings, paintings, sculptures, musical pieces, films, et al. I’ve never seen copyright be attributed to a car design, no matter how beautiful it is. Two things in IP law protect cars, patent and trademark. I can see copyright being issued if something is so uniquely designed, but it seems weird to me that it’s protecting a car that isn’t even an original car.

The Eleanor of the 2000 Gone in Sixty Seconds is based on the 1967 Shelby GT500. Eleanor is not a “car” per se, it’s a code name given so if anyone hears the names over the radio, it doesn’t sound like they’re stealing cars. The Eleanor was a custom build for the movie. And, as the guy in the video points out, this is different from the Eleanor of the original movie.

After some quick Googling, this seems to be all true, but there’s some janky ass logic the court must be using to uphold it. If you told me she sued over trademark and therefore they couldn’t call it Eleanor, that makes sense to me. But how can you copyright a design that’s in itself based on the design of another car that’s named after the car you actually own the copyright on?

At what point does this design become different enough to not violate the copyright? Get rid of the double light at the front? Change the shade of gray? Change the color altogether? What? I’d love to read the court opinion on this.


Something interesting about the copyright and trademark holder Denice Halicki. She was both 3rd cousin and former lover of Robert Kardashian. After Kardashian and Jenner split, he got together with Halicki.

Funny in college, I had breakfast with one of my professors (now passed away) and somebody to do with the original film. They were friends and had breakfast at a local cafe on Saturdays, maybe he was a family member of the director, but I distinctly remember my professor pointing out that he had something (major) to do with the film.

Edit: After some googling it looks like it was Ron Halicki that I had breakfast with (a brother of the director) and played Corlis Pace in the original movie.

[Raza]

Funny in college, I had breakfast with one of my professors (now passed away) and somebody to do with the original film. They were friends and had breakfast at a local cafe on Saturdays, maybe he was a family member of the director, but I distinctly remember my professor pointing out that he had something (major) to do with the film.

Edit: After some googling it looks like it was Ron Halicki that I had breakfast with (a brother of the director) and played Corlis Pace in the original movie.

That's cool!

Although, I have to admit I've never seen the original Gone in 60 Seconds.

[geoffbot]

That's cool!

Although, I have to admit I've never seen the original Gone in 60 Seconds.

Same. Love the remake - nic cage's horrific acting included.

[geoffbot]

My mates are at the race track today. My fomo is overload. But I've never done one before and this is my first superbike and I can't ride it properly yet and will probably bin it so probs for the best. Yeah, and I'm having fun today anyway - I'm sizing servers and writing proposals - that's fun, right?!

[litlmn]

I'm sizing servers and writing proposals - that's fun, right?!

Sure...

[Raza]

Same. Love the remake - nic cage's horrific acting included.

Agreed. The remake is terrible, but I like it.