Do you enjoy car chases? Then you probably remember Eleanor—the sleek Mustang from the Gone in 60 Seconds franchise. She’s arguably the star of the film’s most thrilling scenes. But is Eleanor more than just a car? Is she a copyrightable character, like Mickey Mouse, Batman, James Bond, or even Godzilla? If you’re looking to monetize a character—especially one as memorable as Eleanor—it’s essential to know first whether it’s protected by copyright and who owns the rights.
Can Fictional Characters Be Protected by Copyright?
It is well-established that you can protect fictional characters under copyright law. But not all characters are protectable. How do you know which ones? The question was answered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in DC Comics v. Towle, in which the court considered whether the Batmobile—another car—qualified for copyright protection. The facts are straightforward. DC Comics, the copyright holder of the Batman franchise, sued Mark Towle, who operated “Garage Gotham” and manufactured and sold replica Batmobiles similar to the Batmobile depicted in the 1966 Batman television series and the 1989 Batman movie. Towle advertised and sold these replicas—priced around $90,000—using the name “Batmobile” and other related imagery, without DC’s authorization.
Towle admitted to copying the visual appearance of the Batmobile. He argued, though, that the Batmobile, being just a car design, was not a sufficiently delineated character to deserve copyright protection and that its inconsistent appearance over time supported that argument. The Court disagreed and created a three-part test to determine whether a character was copyrightable:
(1) the character must generally have “physical as well as conceptual qualities.”
(2) the character must be “sufficiently delineated” to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears.
(3) the character must be “especially distinctive” and “contain some unique elements of expression.” … It cannot be a stock character such as a magician in standard magician garb.
Applying this test, the Towle court considered the Batmobile to be protectable under U.S. copyright law.
Back to Eleanor. In Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. v. Halicki, a very recent 9th Circuit case, Halicki, who owns copyrights and merchandising rights to the original Gone in 60 Seconds films, sued Shelby for unlicensed use of the Eleanor name. There were four films total, and “Eleanor” refers to a code name for different Ford Mustangs used by the protagonists in each. In the original film, Eleanor was a yellow Fastback Mustang; elsewhere, it was a gray Shelby GT-500 Mustang.
In a previous settlement between the parties, Shelby agreed not to manufacture or license cars that copied Eleanor’s distinctive hood and inset lights. Later, Shelby licensed another company, Classic Recreations (CR), to produce “GT-500CR” Mustangs. Halicki viewed this as a breach of the settlement and infringement. Shelby, in turn, filed a declaratory judgment suit, asking the court to determine that its conduct was not infringing. Halicki, of course, countersued.
Was Eleanor a Character? The Court Says No
Among the arguments raised by the parties, Halicki claimed that Eleanor—despite appearing in different forms across four films—constituted a single, copyrightable character. Like the Batmobile, Halicki claimed that Eleanor possessed a consistent identity and distinctive traits that deserved copyright protection. The Court disagreed. Applying the three-part Towle test, a character, it wrote, must possess certain “conceptual qualities.”
These include anthropomorphic qualities, acting with agency and volition, displaying sentience and emotion, expressing personality, speaking, thinking or interacting with other characters or objects.
The Batmobile was portrayed as loyal, intelligent, and almost alive. Eleanor, according to the Court, is just a car driven by human characters. No speaking, no thinking, no interaction—no anthropomorphic qualities. “Eleanor is more akin to a prop than a character,” wrote the Court.
The Court looked at whether Eleanor is “sufficiently delineated” to be recognizable as the same character whenever she appears. Not according to the Court’s analysis. Across four films, Eleanor appeared as several different Mustangs—yellow, gray, even rusted out. Her looks and traits changed from scene to scene and film to film. The only thing tying them together was the codename “Eleanor,” which the Court saw as a narrative device, not a mark of character continuity.
Finally, the Court asked whether Eleanor was “especially distinctive”? Here again, the answer was no. She lacked unique expression. Unlike the Batmobile with its “bat-like” gadgets and iconic name, Eleanor was just a muscle car among many—nothing beyond being fast and stylish. The name “Eleanor” itself wasn’t distinctive either; it was just one of many codenames used for cars in the film.
Legal Takeaways for IP Owners and Creators
The Court concluded Eleanor wasn’t a character at all—just a series of cool cars tied together by name. Without consistent traits, personality, or uniqueness, Eleanor failed all three parts of the Towle test.
You can’t fault Halicki for zealously defending her intellectual property—it’s her legal obligation. For anyone considering the use of elements from a popular film, proceed with caution. Even if a character or concept ultimately isn’t protectable, you could still find yourself entangled in costly, time-consuming litigation.
— Adam G. Garson, Esq.