In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Got it, it was the commercialization of the build that sunk them. Still surprised they were forced to give up the car tho, it's BIFB's property
In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Got it, it was the commercialization of the build that sunk them. Still surprised they were forced to give up the car tho, it's BIFB's property
docwyte said:In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Got it, it was the commercialization of the build that sunk them. Still surprised they were forced to give up the car tho, it's BIFB's property
That's my guess. Much like the way the EPA operates, the IP owner isn't going to go after individual owners buying repro body kits. They're going to go after the manufacturer and distributors of the knock off kits, much like the EPA goes after after market emissions defeat device manufacturers not the vehicle owners.
BIFB sort of falls in between but he was highly visible, making money off the build process, using the trademark with some regularity in the videos often referring to it as "building an Eleanor Mustang." As such they needed to defend the IP.
As for taking the car. Counterfeit goods are seized and destroyed all the time if they're caught in the import process. That's a pretty common thing. I don't suspect that's the case here as that would require a fair bit more more legal wrangling than appears to have happened.
I'm sort of extrapolating the details into my experience with IP law into this particular situation but there are a lot of unknowns here.
In reply to docwyte :
My understanding of Copyright comes from dealing with industrial design and graphic arts. Those medium are a bit different because generally speaking the object you are reproducing has little intrinsic value (Prints, Furniture, Paintings) and all of the value comes from invoking the Copyrighted work. Cars aren't really different however it feels different because a car has a much higher value and is more expensive to produce before applying the value of the TM/CW IP to it. It is allowed for you to produce an Eleanore under "fair use". Making 1 for personal use and eventually selling it is probably not something the Copyright owner will pursue. Making 10 and selling them they absolutely will. Making 1 on YouTube as a source of income makes it impossible to distinguish what portion of your income from viewings of that project came from people watching you reproduce an unauthorized copy of a copy limited work. Once they associated the car with being an "Eleanore" it became a copy of TM/Copywrited work, and unless licensed it is by default property of the TM/Copyright owner. In one way it shows that they did a really good job that the car was considered close enough of a copy that it fell under TM/CW. I'm honestly not sure if this means that if you personally build an Eleanore clone it is really the property of the TM/CW owner and they are simply choosing to let you use it or if it is legally your's still. It seems a bit like a schrodinger car at that point. Again my understanding is it would come back to intent and if "fair use" covers it.
I'm not sure how exactly the Eleanore body kits work WRT the copyright/TM. I did some looking to find kits and it appears that for the years of Mustang used in the film that there are kits that actually call themselves Eleanore and use the reference to Gone in 60 Seconds in their sales. These kits also seem expensive for what they are so perhaps there is licensing associated with that. The kits for other year mustangs seem to say "Eleanore Style" which is a classic way to invoke Fair Use avoid copyright by making it a derivative work.
I suspect that BIFB would have been able to take down the videos and keep the car, however he likely was told he never could have shown the car, used the car in any promotions, or done further videos, so I would imagine at that point just surrendering it to remove any further liability was the course agreed to.
Now my opinion on this would absolutely change if the owner of the copyright simply decided that producing any 60's fastback mustang without any mention of Eleanore is grounds for invoking their TM/copyright. That doesn't appear to be what happened but I'm open to more information if there is any. What I remember from the videos is that they were pretty clearly making a Eleanore clone and stated as much from early videos. I can't go back and check to validate though.
Mercedes does this. There are no 300SL replicas
And Caterham used to sue the pants off everyone.
Keith Tanner said:The sad part is that the remake Eleanor is not an attractive car. It's like some 90's tuner got their hands on a classic Mustang and decided to update it. And the movie wasn't really very good, with bad CGI in the big jump. The original is a terrible movie from a lot of viewpoints but the chase and jump are legit. I guess maybe if you were the right age when it came out you'd have imprinted on the 2000 Eleanor, but the original is a more iconic car. Unfortunately, you can't make money with replicas because it's just an orange Mustang :)
I thought I was the only one that felt this way.
I've never liked the new body kitted Eleanor.
Was the crime just using the term "Eleanor" or is there a design patent on the fiberglass parts?
Could Ford not have sued for the same cause as pertains to the use of their use of their trademark?
nocones said:Now my opinion on this would absolutely change if the owner of the copyright simply decided that producing any 60's fastback mustang without any mention of Eleanore is grounds for invoking their TM/copyright. That doesn't appear to be what happened but I'm open to more information if there is any. What I remember from the videos is that they were pretty clearly making a Eleanore clone and stated as much from early videos. I can't go back and check to validate though.
That's where I'm at too as it applies to fair use. This was marketed as an "Eleanor Mustang build" from the start and would have (or did) lead to merch etc using the cars likeness as supplementary income. There was no way the IP holder was going to let it pass as the article I linked earlier mentioned the IP holder retains the rights to toy and apparel use as well.
You see this kind of stuff in the watch community all the time. There's countless "Submariner homage" and "GMT homage" watches out there, but they're never referred to as such.
They're also usually pretty careful to make sure that their designs are "substantially distinguishable" from the Rolex inspirations and to never invoke the Rolex or Tudor name. You can bet that the luxury brands are watching the homage brands pretty carefully.
It kinda sucks for him but the whole (fancy latin) Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat (Ignorance of the law excuses not) bit comes into play pretty heavily as it relates to IP laws in nearly every country on the planet.
ShawnG said:Mercedes does this. There are no 300SL replicas
Their absolutely are 300SL replicas in the world.
Ferrari does the same thing though they focus on the badging. Build a 308 replica with your own badging and don't represent it as a Ferrari and they tend to be decent.
Ford went after Cobra badge makers a while back.
Pretty standard practice as you have to defend your copyright or lose it.
In reply to wearymicrobe :
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1074306_want-a-replica-300sl-tough-luck-says-mercedes
Probably not smart to own one then.
In reply to tremm :
Part of what like about him is its obvious he's a hobbyist, not a professional fabricator. He makes some cringe worthy mistakes, shows them, talks about them etc. I don't like some of the stuff he does wide body wise and wouldn't want to buy a car he's built, but it's fun to see a "normal" guy dive in and make mistakes
In other news, I just subscribed to a new YouTube channel called "L is for Legal". The first series of LIFL is all about copyright infringement. Fascinating stuff. It's hosted by a non-lawyer, making a lot of the same mistakes we would make if we were to practice law in our own garages.
In reply to T.J. :
That's some funny stuff right there. Just don't start up a channel called "D is for Dental" and attempt to do dental work in your garage and make a lot of mistakes.
T.J. said:In other news, I just subscribed to a new YouTube channel called "L is for Legal". The first series of LIFL is all about copyright infringement. Fascinating stuff. It's hosted by a non-lawyer, making a lot of the same mistakes we would make if we were to practice law in our own garages.
I could see a lot of us falling into the trap BIFB did. I'm certainly not gloating over the fact that Chis did so, it's an easy mistake to have made.
Being a content creator on Youtube can filled with murky legal issues that you wouldn't give two thoughts about if you were like us, just building a car in your garage. Unfortunetly with the following the channel has amassed, he's now a prime target for this type of legal action. Content creation isn't the Wild West it used to be and luckily this didn't bankrupt him. Hopefully he's a bit more careful in the future.
In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Absolutely. I follow a number of music channels and getting copyright strikes is a constant battle for many of them, even if the video in question is demonetized.
I doubt the Eleanore build situation is any different than if someone were to do a build series on a General Lee replica. Restore a Charger - Sure. Hell, you can even paint it orange. But once you throw decals on it (with or without the flag...) and call it "The General Lee" you'll run the risk of inviting legal action against you.
I'm sure thought was given towards the "Mk 2" Eleanore being special instead of just another GT500 Mustang. The producers wanted it to be something they could profit from for years to come.
ShawnG said:In reply to wearymicrobe :
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1074306_want-a-replica-300sl-tough-luck-says-mercedes
Probably not smart to own one then.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekHU4HQ0Zc
I really like this one.
There was a shop building super nice 300 SL replicas in the late 80s , using late model Mercedes running gear ,
This guy was a fanatic and the cars were very detailed , I would love to have one now !
Ian F (Forum Supporter) said:In reply to The0retical (Forum Supporter) :
Absolutely. I follow a number of music channels and getting copyright strikes is a constant battle for many of them, even if the video in question is demonetized.
I doubt the Eleanore build situation is any different than if someone were to do a build series on a General Lee replica. Restore a Charger - Sure. Hell, you can even paint it orange. But once you throw decals on it (with or without the flag...) and call it "The General Lee" you'll run the risk of inviting legal action against you.
I'm sure thought was given towards the "Mk 2" Eleanore being special instead of just another GT500 Mustang. The producers wanted it to be something they could profit from for years to come.
There are people who make money of copyright strikes. One of the people I follow had quite a few videos hit because somebody copyrighted a song he uses. A song he had permission from the author to use. Somebody copyrighted it without the author's knowledge. Much hilarity ensued.
Hmm, I wonder if Mustangs Unlimited got smacked by this as well. We sold a bunch of "Eleanor" parts when I worked there. The owner wasn't exactly on the straight and narrow on legal issues, so I wouldn't be shocked if their sudden closure recently was due to losing a lawsuit.
OK, so yes this Is clickbait, no car was STOLEN, only a trademark was.
slefain said:Hmm, I wonder if Mustangs Unlimited got smacked by this as well. We sold a bunch of "Eleanor" parts when I worked there. The owner wasn't exactly on the straight and narrow on legal issues, so I wouldn't be shocked if their sudden closure recently was due to losing a lawsuit.
Actually, I think Mustangs Unlimited was one of the ones hit in the mid 2000's when Ford decided they had to enforce their trademarks or lose it. I think there were a number of websites that also got caught up in that.
Fun story - we once went to get a poster printed of one of our cars. The print company was all twitchy about trademark and the car was obviously a Miata, so they said they had to have permission from Mazda. So I contacted Mazda's legal department and learned all sorts of interesting things about the Miata name and Miyata bicycles and agreements and types of products. Basically, they didn't have a problem with us printing the poster but they couldn't officially approve it. Same with our company name.
So I went to another print company.
I've never understood the desire for "replica" or "homage" versions of things.
I feel that replicas diminish the quality of the real thing. One of my customers wanted a real AC Cobra. We advised him to buy a 289 Cobra rather than a 427 Cobra simply because he would spend less time explaining that it was a replica. There are far more big block replicas out there.
On the other hand, a fake Rolex is a great social barometer.
I abhor patent and trademark law in this country. Pretty sure some corporation soon will win a patent on the sun. And then there’s every other celebrity winning trademarks on the English language. Get over yourselves already.....ew...sorry. Somebody has trademarked using “already” at the end like that.
Eleanore. Elenore. Elanore. Elinore. That's the stupid thing about this story that bothers me the most...they all seem to be spelled wrong.
I don't know if anyone caught it but if you watch the last full episode you could hear Chris trip up and pause when he was summarizing the GTR build about the body kit.
The kit was/is a knockoff LibertyWalk. Obviously some lessons were learned.
You'll need to log in to post.
