Le gars s'est fait saisir son Eleanor replica à cause d'un mot copyright??

oVeRdOsE

Well-known member
vraiment? c'est quoi les lois là dessus au USA?


2015-ford-mustang-gt-gets-1967-eleanor-body-conversion-looks-amazing-142236-7.jpg
 
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/hali111308.htm#:~:text=The%20Ninth%20U.S.%20Circuit%20Court,2000%20remake%20of%20the%20film.


By SHERRI M. OKAMOTO, Staff Writer



The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday revived the copyright infringement claims by the widow of the original “Gone in 60 Seconds” star, H.B. “Toby” Halicki, over unauthorized replicas of the Ford Mustang known as “Eleanor” which appeared in the 2000 remake of the film.

Vacating the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the panel ruled that Denice Halicki had standing to pursue her copyright, trademark infringement, unfair competition, and declaratory relief claims against Carroll Shelby International Inc. and Unique Motorcars Inc.

The original 1974 version of “Gone in 60 Seconds” featured a yellow 1971 Fastback Ford Mustang, customized to appear as a Mach 1 Fastback Mustang, as Eleanor.

After Toby Halicki’s on-set death while filming a sequel, Denice Halicki obtained ownership of the 1971 Flashback Mustang used to portray Eleanor and all rights, title and interest, including copyrights, of the film owned by her late husband.

She later licensed the Eleanor name and likeness for a line of toy cars and exhibited the Flashback Mustang at car shows.

In 1995, Halicki sold the rights to produce a remake of “Gone in 60 Seconds” to Hollywood Pictures, but the agreement expressly provided that Halicki reserved the “right to manufacture, sell and distribute merchandise utilizing the car known as ‘Eleanor’ from the Original [film].”

The remake also featured a car named Eleanor which was customized to appear as a 1967 Shelby GT-500, a variant of the Ford Mustang developed by the Carroll Shelby company. Carroll Shelby subsequently applied for registration of the trademark “Eleanor” for automobiles, structural parts of automobiles, and model cars.

License Agreement

Carroll Shelby then entered into a license agreement with Unique Motorcars authorizing Unique Motorcars to use the trademarks “Shelby GT-500” and “Eleanor” in connection with the manufacture and sale of vehicles and merchandise relating to any 1960s Shelby automobiles, and Unique Motorcars began selling vehicles resembling Eleanor in the remake.

Halicki filed a complaint against Carroll Shelby and Unique Motorcars for creating unauthorized replicas of Eleanor, but U.S. District Judge S. James Otero of the Central District of California found that Halicki lacking standing to sue because she had assigned her rights to the remake Eleanor to Hollywood Pictures.

In his opinion for the appellate court, Senior Judge Roger J. Miner of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation, explained that the agreement between Halicki and Hollywood Pictures was reasonably susceptible to the interpretation that Halicki had reserved her rights to the remake Eleanor.

The use of the word “from” lent weight to Halicki’s proposed interpretation of the contract, Miner said. Citing Webster’s Third New International Directory, which defined “from” as “a function word to indicate the source or original or moving force of something: as…the source, cause, means, or ultimate agent of an action or condition,” Minor reasoned that the use of “from” indicated that “Eleanor” in a sequel or remake was still “Eleanor from the Original.”

Miner further reasoned that if the agreement meant to only refer to the original Eleanor, it would have granted a right to “continue to manufacture, sell, and distribute” merchandise depicting the character of Eleanor.

Noting other provisions of the contract specifically addressed Halicki’s merchandising rights for the original Eleanor, Miner concluded that the contested provision would be superfluous unless it was intended to reserve her rights to produce merchandise related to the remake Eleanor.

Conflicting Readings

But, Miner cautioned, the contract did not command such an interpretation. Because the contract was reasonably susceptible to conflicting readings Miner explained that extrinsic evidence could be examined to determine a definitive construction, and the trial court committed reversible error in failing to consider extrinsic evidence to aid in its interpretation of agreement.

In light of declarations from Halicki and Hollywood Pictures stating that the parties intended for the rights to the remake Eleanor to be reserved to Halicki, Miner said “the extrinsic evidence unequivocally supports Halicki’s interpretation…[that the contract] reserves to Halicki the rights to Remake Eleanor as well as Original Eleanor.”

On remand, Miner directed the trial court to conduct a fact-intensive inquiry into whether Eleanor is a character entitled to copyright protection, as Halicki argued, noting that the car displays consistent, widely identifiable traits and is especially distinctive, or “just a car,” as the defendants claimed.

The trial court was also directed to consider whether Halicki had established ownership of the “Eleanor” mark through prior use.

Judges Stephen Reinhardt and Marsha S. Berzon joined Miner in his opinion.

Jens B. Koepke and Timothy T. Coates of Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland LLP represented Halicki, who Koepke said was “very pleased” with the court’s ruling and was looking forward to “having a chance to present the case to a jury and show why the defendants sale of the knock-off Eleanor cars was a copyright and trademark violation that has damaged Ms. Halicki and the Eleanor name greatly.”

He claimed that the defendant had “sold hundreds if not more of these cars, grossing millions of dollars” from “hijacking” the Eleanor trademark and character.

Koepke also opined that the court, in dicta, had indicated that the Eleanor character was subject to copyright protection and that Halicki is the owner of the trademark.

Robert F. Helfing of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran, & Arnold LLP represented Carroll Shelby and Unique Motorcars. He could not be reached for comment.

The case is Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson Sales and Marketing, 06-55806 and 06-55807.

C'est un osti de shitshow légal qui dure depuis longtemps, pis vu qu'y'a fait du cash sur un brand ben y s'est fait savonner l'brun. 'Merica
 
j'aimerais avoir plus de détail, mais le gars a dis qu'ils ont saisit son built, qui est très différence d,un eleanor movie hero de 2M$, que 2 gars avec des outils de base ont build dans un petit garage?? À cause d'un nom youtube.

sérieux, je veux voir les 2 cotés de la médail. Jme serais poussé avec le char et déclaré volé avant que ces tbk viennent volé mon travail et probablement le scrapper..
 
L'histoire qui me revient en tête c'est les voitures dans Fast n Furious. Il y a eu des poursuites en droit d'auteur pour avoir reproduit la Supra sans autorisation.
 
L'histoire qui me revient en tête c'est les voitures dans Fast n Furious. Il y a eu des poursuites en droit d'auteur pour avoir reproduit la Supra sans autorisation.

jimagine, mais un avertissement p-e?

Et B is for Build c'est loin d'un replica authentique, très loin.


Je ne sait pas si Octane Fix ont eu du trouble eux.
 
I'm fine with it. IP theft is what we all bitch at China for why should it be different here ?

Sent from my EML-L09 using Tapatalk
 
jimagine, mais un avertissement p-e?

Et B is for Build c'est loin d'un replica authentique, très loin.

Y'a utiliser du matériel sous droits d'auteur à buts lucratifs. Eleanor c'est une marque déposée et aussi un personnage. Techniquement tu peux gosser un cosplay d'un Fastback gris à inspiration d'Eleanor avec un 2JZ dedans si tu veux dans ton garage du west-island, mais selon c'te crisse de crinquée là qui en a fait sa vache à lait, pas faire du cash avec le nom Eleanor.

Y'aurait été correct si y'avait juste dit '' J'aime vraiment Eleanor de Gone in 60 seconds, c'est une inspiration, je pourrai jamais en avoir une, alors j'vais me dégosser un body de mustang fastback retro sur le frame d'un GT recent, pis j'va l'apeller Karen ''. À la place de '' OUR ELEANOR BUILD... ''
 
hé ben fou raide pareil. En effet, le coté lucratif de la chose change un peu la vison.

reste aussi qu'il devrait avoir place au jugement. Ce n'est pas comme si ce nom raportait encore des M$ en 2020...
 
hé ben fou raide pareil. En effet, le coté lucratif de la chose change un peu la vison.

reste aussi qu'il devrait avoir place au jugement. Ce n'est pas comme si ce nom raportait encore des M$ en 2020...

J'ai trouvé ça en creusant un peu, ça m'intéresse.

https://www.thedrive.com/sheetmetal/17447/you-can-buy-an-officially-licensed-eleanor-mustang-for-189000

A shop in Los Angeles, California called Fusion Motor Company has acquired the exclusive license to make official Eleanor Ford Mustangs. For those of you unfamiliar with Eleanor, it’s the name given to the 1973 Ford Mustang in the 1974 film Gone in 60 Seconds by filmmaker H.B. “Toby” Halicki and the 1967 Ford Shelby GT500 in the 2000 remake starring Nicholas Cage."]Ashop in Los Angeles, California called Fusion Motor Company has acquired the exclusive license to make official Eleanor Ford Mustangs. For those of you unfamiliar with Eleanor, it’s the name given to the 1973 Ford Mustang in the 1974 film Gone in 60 Seconds by filmmaker H.B. “Toby” Halicki and the 1967 Ford Shelby GT500 in the 2000 remake starring Nicholas Cage.

The version that Fusion Motor Company makes is a made-to-order restomod that takes six months to build. It starts out as a 1967 or 1968 Mustang Fastback that’s stripped out and placed on a new frame.

Pis mélange ça que au fait que poursuivre aux états-unis c'est un sport... ben y'a dû recevoir un cease and desist et donner le char en collatéral.
 
hé ben fou raide pareil. En effet, le coté lucratif de la chose change un peu la vison.

reste aussi qu'il devrait avoir place au jugement. Ce n'est pas comme si ce nom raportait encore des M$ en 2020...

C'est pas juste le nom. Le look est également couvert par le copyright. Tu as le droit de te bâtir une réplique et de l'appeler Eleanor seulement si tu leur a payé la license et que ta voiture est enregistrée dans leur système.

Quand Ford a ressorti la GT40 en 2005, ils ont du la renommer Ford GT parce qu'ils n'avaient plus le trademark du nom GT40 et que la compagnie qui le détanait leur demandait trop cher pour l'utiliser.
 
C'est pas juste le nom. Le look est également couvert par le copyright. Tu as le droit de te bâtir une réplique et de l'appeler Eleanor seulement si tu leur a payé la license et que ta voiture est enregistrée dans leur système.
You can build the car but can't profit from it and market it as such The YouTube video was going to profit from the name and likeness

USA, Canada, EU all have similar laws. If you owned the rights to something you would do the same
 
je comprend le but du copyright, mais de ce faire saisir le char, je comprend pas trop.

C'est peut être juste pour faire un peu de internet drama, on sais tous que le monde aime le internet drama ...
 
You can build the car but can't profit from it and market it as such The YouTube video was going to profit from the name and likeness

USA, Canada, EU all have similar laws. If you owned the rights to something you would do the same

they could have told them change to the look as opposed to outright seizing it. I'm going to assume they weren't asked nicely.

And it's not like Gone in 60 seconds is going to be making any money off of people who build Eleanor replicas either. Toys and t-shirts, maybe. No one is stealing from them by making their own car look like theirs.
 
je comprend le but du copyright, mais de ce faire saisir le char, je comprend pas trop.

C'est peut être juste pour faire un peu de internet drama, on sais tous que le monde aime le internet drama ...

Je penserais pas que c'est du internet drama par contre....

Mais c'est overkill de saisir le char en calice. Il a été dédommager?
 
tu peux construire la replique que tu veux, le probleme commence lorsque tu le monétise.

amurica freedom my ass.
 
they could have told them change to the look as opposed to outright seizing it. I'm going to assume they weren't asked nicely.

And it's not like Gone in 60 seconds is going to be making any money off of people who build Eleanor replicas either. Toys and t-shirts, maybe. No one is stealing from them by making their own car look like theirs.

and Im guessing because this guy bring back the name from 2000 , they both could make money. Looks like a win win situation to me, and now its gone.


Je serais curieux de savoir les details.

Ca me fait un peu penser au poursuite que Ferrari fait quand des influenceurs / ti-clin, modifient les Ferrari et en font la promo. Au moins ils gardent leur ferrari, il faut juste qu'ils enlèvent leurs bébelles.
En plus, meme si c'est pas 'freedom', je trouve ca plus juste : Salir l'image de ferrari VS faire la pub pour un vieux film 2000....
 
tu peux construire la replique que tu veux, le probleme commence lorsque tu le monétise.

Tout part de l'exposure qu'il a via youtube et qu'il associe un peu trop son built à une marque.

Perso je peux comprendre. Mettons que tu investirais beaucoup d'énergie pour développer un produit et une notoriété, ça te ferais quand même de quoi de voir un individu publier un vidéo de ce type. Aussi si tu fais rien comme marque la suite sera quoi? L'individu ou un autre va t'il commencer à fabriquer des répliques et ça peut faire boule de neige. Si la marque fait rien et le savait ça peut même être récupéré par des avocats qui vont invoquer que c'est une forme de droit acquis que tu a laissé à l'individu.

S'il avait fait son built dans son garage et avait gardé ça low profile, il en serait pas là.
 
Back
Top