The Ninth Circuit Finds that the Ford Mustangs Named “Eleanor” from the Gone in 60 Seconds Films Are Not Copyrightable Characters

In a blow to the owners of the rights to the film Gone in 60 Seconds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that “Eleanor”—the series of Ford Mustangs featured in the film franchise—is not a character entitled to copyright protection. The May 27, 2025, decision in Carroll Shelby Licensing, Inc. v. Halicki, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 12766, __ F.4th __ (9th Cir. 2025), clarifies the high bar for a fictional “character” to be independently copyrightable, particularly when that character is an inanimate object.

The dispute centered on whether Denice Halicki, who owns the rights to the “Eleanor” character (a series of Ford Mustangs), could prevent Carroll Shelby Licensing from producing and selling its own custom Ford Mustangs. Halicki argued that Shelby’s cars infringed her copyright in the Eleanor character. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, affirming the district court’s finding that Eleanor is not a protectable character under copyright law.

To determine if a character is copyrightable, the Ninth Circuit applies a three-part test from its earlier decision in DC Comics v. Towle, 802 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir. 2015), which concerned the Batmobile as it appeared in the comic books, television series, and the 1989 motion picture (the court in Towle found that the Batmobile is copyrightable as a character). To be copyrightable, a character must: (1) have both physical and conceptual qualities; (2) be “sufficiently delineated” so that it is recognizable as the same character whenever it appears and displays consistent, identifiable traits; and (3) be “especially distinctive” and not a stock character.

The Ninth Circuit found that Eleanor failed to satisfy any of these requirements. First, while Eleanor has a physical appearance, it lacks any “conceptual qualities” or anthropomorphic traits. Unlike the Batmobile, which is described as a "loyal" companion to Batman and at times acts with a degree of autonomy, Eleanor is simply a car driven by the film’s protagonists. It does not think, feel, or act on its own. As the Court put it, Eleanor is “more akin to a prop than a character.”

Second, Eleanor is not “sufficiently delineated.” Its appearance is inconsistent across the films, ranging from a yellow and black Fastback Mustang to a gray and black Shelby GT-500, and even a rusty, stripped-down version. Halicki’s attempts to identify consistent traits, such as being “hard to steal” or “good at evading police,” were unpersuasive, as the Court attributed these traits to the skill of the drivers, not to the car itself.

Finally, the Court found that Eleanor is not “especially distinctive.” It is essentially a “stock” sports car, unlike the Batmobile with its unique, bat-like features and advanced technology. The name “Eleanor” itself is a common female name, chosen in the film precisely for its normalcy as a codename.

The takeaway from this case is that an object, even an iconic one, will not necessarily be considered a “character” for copyright purposes. Although the mere fact that a purported character is not a sentient being does not automatically preclude copyrightability, the non-sentient being must be more than merely a car that functions essentially as a prop in a film, albeit a highly coveted one.