YouTuber Chris Steinbacher and his team had set out to turn a salvaged 2015 Mustang GT into a 1967 Mustang GT500 that looked like Eleanor from the 2000 film, Gone in 60 Seconds. But now the build is over and his Mustang is property of the Eleanor rights holder. Full, tragic details right here: https://mustangforums.com/articles/e...-mans-mustang/

 

It 's easy. Never ever ever buy anything related to "Eleanor" - my money will go elsewhere. A wallet is a big stick.

As far as taking the dudes Mustang, this seems odd and perhaps something is missing in this tale of sadness.

Seems like you remove the build pieces and move on. Lastly - last time I checked I don't remember Eleanor having a 5.0?

This is a one trick pony and as long as Ford keeps pumping out variations like the Shelbys and the BOSS that is coming soon - we have a lot to be happy about.

 

There are numerous wrong conclusions in your article. No, you don't have to "enforce" your rights or risk losing them, especially like this. That's a fallacy of these protections. Here's a link to a quick primer on how trademark and copyright both work.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...03450379.shtml

The shorthand is trademark doesn't apply because he isn't selling Eleanor branded stuff.

Copyright shouldn't apply at all. But if it does I would argue his creation is fair use as it's transformative enough from the original.

I think he either had a lawyer who was REALLY uneducated and unprepared for a copyright or trademark dispute. That or the threat of litigation was so expensive he just gave them whatever they wanted to go away.

 

First, let me start by saying I hate that movie (the 2000 one) and don't like the flying car, but apart from that, do companies like Cervini's, who make or used to make a body kit to practically turn an S197 into that car pay a licensing fee?

Knowing some you tubers will do anything for more subscribers, I think there has to be more to this story.

 

Thank you for the link. I openly admit to not being a lawyer, but in re-reading my piece, I don't think I was wrong. As it says in the article you linked, "Yes, trademark holders are required to take certain steps to keep a mark from becoming considered generic and potentially losing the mark, but that doesn't mean threatening or suing anyone who uses the mark." Which is quite close to my phrasing, "if you don't enforce your rights, you're at risk for losing them."

Regardless of my lack of law and president, I agree with you about your last two points. The Gone folks probably had a lot more money, and from what I've read, Steinbacher described them as particularly nasty so, assuming Steinbacher's lawyer wasn't a fool, it was probably just the cheapest/quickest solution to give up and move on.

Cheers & thanks for reading