(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.
Watch as they take this video down and sue Donut.
They murmured the forbidden word.... E~L~A~N~O~R Donut media is next... Lol
lol lemme just get a wholeass windshield banner with "Eleanor" printed on it, then get a GT500. watch that old dried up bitch try to come get my car.
God If anyone ever came at my creative freedom with some bullshit llc slapsuit I’d just take the L and probably murder their kids