Eleanor Monopoly No More: The Weird Saga of a Zealous Lying Biz That Actually Seized A Youtuber's Car Just Because They Could

Recently, it was revealed that the monopoly on "Eleanor", the 1967 Mustang Fastback, has finally been broken, after the judge pointed out the litigant committed perjury and tried to attribute human qualities to a car so they can claim copyright over something they don't own. However, the story is extremely complicated, 

To get this story right, we have to start from the beginning, of a movie called "Gone in 60 Seconds", released back in 1974 by H.B. Halicki. You can see the "original" hero car, A 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1, here, named Eleanor.  

The hero car from Gone in 60 Seconds (1974) 

(and here's the actual vehicle as stored in Petersen Automotive Museum )

The car also appeared in two other H B Halicki movies: The Junkman and Deadline Auto Theft. Though these two movies are made with a lot of footage recycled from the first Gone in 60 Seconds. 

H.B. Halicki died in 1989 while filming a sequel of sorts. His widow, Denise Halicki, was determined to protect EVERYTHING to do with the movie, including the car and its name, "Eleanor", and proceeded to trademark it, and licensed the movie for the 2000 remake starring Nicholas Cage and Angelina Jolie. 

The Eleanor in the 2000 movie was a 1967 Mustang GT500 redesigned by Chip Foose and Steve Sanford. It looks nothing like the vehicle above, as you can see here. The only thing they have in common is they are both Ford Mustangs, that's it. 

1967 Mustang GT500 "Eleanor" as seen in "Gone in 60 Seconds (2000)"

Unfortunately, the fact that this vehicle is NOTHING like the original 1974 Eleanor did not deter Denise Halicki and her "Eleanor Licensing" from harassing ANYBODY who tried to make a car that looks similar to the "new" Eleanor. Remember, this vehicle has nothing to do with Halicki other than it was named Eleanor in an authorized 2000 remake of the 1974 movie. Somehow, Denise Halicki and her company believed this is enough for her to claim the design as their own... 

Technically speaking, Denise Halicki knew the remake will feature a different car, and she didn't trademark THAT car, when she authorized the remake in 1995. The movie finally came out in 2000.  Shelby trademarked the Eleanor Mustang in 2002. THEN Halicki sued in 2004 claiming the trademark belongs to her, and it was awarded to her in 2008 by US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Between then and now, Halicki's Eleanor Licensing and its lawyers claimed that ANY car named Eleanor without their blessing is illegal. The crisis reached a boiling point in 2020 when Youtube Channel "B stands for Build" tried to build a new Eleanor by grafting a 1967 Mustang body onto a modern Mustang platform. The Youtuber was forced to pull his entire 14-video series documenting the build from Youtube, but also had his partially built car SEIZED. 

In fact, Halicki's lawyers went as far as threaten to sue or have sued ANYONE who made a Ford Mustang GT500 that even remotely looked similar to the Chip Foose / Steve Sanford design above, the car she had no rights to even if it's NOT called Eleanor! They were called GT500E, and GT500CR respectively. Then they had the temerity to send letters to the auction houses and owners, warning them to NOT sell those unless they want to be sued as well! (Yes, this was all in the court paper, which will be linked below)

Even Shelby Licensing / Shelby Trust had enough and they sued to have the previous ruling reversed, and in December 2022, they finally prevailed. A judge watched all relevant movies, and ruled that the car CANNOT be a character and thus does not deserve the copyright protection that was granted by previous courts, because, in short, the Halicki lawyers lied to the court. The decision can be read here. 

I won't go into details, you can have Steve Lehto explain that to you. 

But I'll include a juicy quote:

"unfortunate practice on the part of the Halicki Parties 
to embellish facts in their briefing [to the court]."

Ouch, what a smackdown. 

Does that mean people now can build their own versions of Eleanor? Seems to be "yes". 

Will this stop Denise and her lawyers? Unlikely. They *can* appeal. The question is will they? 

Legal COVIDiocy Denied: Anti-Masker Got His Day In Court. Got Glorious Federal Judge Smackdown

There is a saying, "a lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client". So when a civilian (read: non-lawyer), probably goaded on by antivaxxers, decided to sue Whole Foods for enforcing a local (Dedham, Massachusetts) mask mandate on January 4th, 2021 and going in "pro se" (without a lawyer, only as himself), you know things will get ugly... for the civilian. But let's lay out the case. 

Ryan Manning went to Whole Foods in Dedham, Massachusetts on Jan 4, 2021, without a mask. He was stopped by staff who asked him to mask up, and he refused. It was escalated to both the manager and head manager, both of whom told him he needs to mask up. Instead of complying, he left the premises  to call the police, alleged that his civil rights were being violated, then returned to the store with the police. The manager tried to offer him compromises, like doing the shopping for him, or giving him a health screening and a temperature check. Manning refused both. (It's obvious he's looking for a fight.) Why he won't wear a mask? He believes masks are used for satanic rituals so he won't wear one, and he refuses to "slowly commit suicide by lowering his immune system and depriving himself of oxygen". He eventually left. He filed the lawsuit in May 2021, with no less than EIGHT alleged violations of law:

1) Violated his first amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion (42 USC 1983)

2) Violated 18 USC 242 

3) Discriminated against him in public and violated 42 USC 2000a in two instances (counts as 2)

4) Conspiracy to interfere with his civil rights violating 42 USC 1985

5) Engaged in "unauthorized practice of medicine" against MA general laws CH 112 / 6

6) Harassed him

7) Falsely imprisoned him. 

Let's just say the judge eviscerated him in every count. 

How Much Licensing Is Too Much?

When you see an injustice, what do you do about it? If you said nothing, would you at least morally support those who to decided to speak up against the injustice? Let's assume you agree...

Next, do you support state licensing of various professions? Cosmetology? Engineering? Contractors? It's all in the interest of public protection, right? These are supposed to be responsible for people's lives or money, and they should know what they're doing, so the government is supposed to license them to 1) make sure they meet requirements, like went to a certain school, and b) pay a licensing fee for the cost of this licensing program. If it operates as intended, then there is no problem. 

But when it is used indiscriminately against the citizens then there is a problem. 

Let me introduce you to two heroes who decided to speak up against such injustices. 

Mats Jarlstrom's wife got a red-light ticket while making a right turn in 2013. He investigated the signal and found that the yellow light interval can be shortened in order to elevate maximum revenue, not safety. And he has found that most jurisdictions set the yellow light interval too short and does not account for right-hand turn traffic, but only for straight-through vehicles (who can come to a stop or speed through). He started to advocate his findings by going to interviews with news stations, talking to traffic engineers, and even presented his research at a national conference of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. 

Then "Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying" fined him $500 for "practicing engineering without a license". No, I am NOT making this up. In fact, the board wanted Mats to stop calling himself an engineer (he has a degree in electrical engineering, but he's not a licensed engineer in Oregon). And continued offense could be fined up to several thousand dollars and one year in jail, if he continued to "critique" traffic lights.  

So Mats sued the board in Federal Court for violating his first amendment rights. And he won in 2018. 

In 2020, Journal of the Institute of Transportation Engineers said Jarlstrom was right. 

This is a clear case of state licensing gone overboard. 

But let's look at another example... something a bit closer to home... hair braiding. 

In at least SEVEN states (including Oregon), hair braiders are required to have cosmetology or hairstyling licenses... even though hair braiding was not taught in cosmetology AT ALL. Keep in mind that hair braiding uses NO chemicals, dyes or colors, or other products. It is completely natural, involves no cutting or bleaching. 

Yet in multiple states, hair braiders have to obtain either cosmetology or hairstyling licenses. And these operators are forced to learn things they will NEVER use (like bleaching, or nail trimming). Keep in mind that many of these cosmetology courses require THOUSANDS of hours in training and TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS tuition. 

In 1997, Isis Brantley was raided by multiple state agents who arrested her for braiding hair without cosmetology license in Texas. So when Texas started licensing Hair Braiding in 2007, it was supposed to be a relief, but it wasn't. The new law was attached to the existing barbering statute. Brantley's hair braiding school, in order to become legal, must be turned into a barber school including size, barber chairs, and sinks, and she must become a licensed barber instructor in order to teach. 

No, I am not making this up either. 

Fortunately, over a dozen states have separate "specialty licenses" for hair braiders, and some of them have lesser training requirements, if at all. A few hundred hours. 

So what happened to Isis Brantley? She sued the state of Texas in Federal Court, and won in 2015. Braiding instructor course was shortened to a 50-hour course (instead of 750-hour barber course) and the laws forcing barber school standards onto hair braiding schools? Unconstitutional.  And in 2015, Texas chose to deregulate hair braiding altogether. 

And indeed, in 30 states, hair braiders need NO LICENSE at all. 

So next time you think about licensing, in these tough economic times, consider this: is the licensing HELPING the public... or hurting the businesses? 

Will the REAL Miwok Indians please stand up?

Image via WikipediaNow that Red Hawk Casino is open by "Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians", another Miwok Indian is getting sued by this band... With a casino feeding their coffers, they can afford to.

So what's the suit about? This man, a Mr. Caballero who CAN trace his ancestry back for 100 years in El Dorado county as a Miwok Indian, through BIA and other records, claims to be the tribal historian of SSBoMI. The SSBoMI, on the other hand, don't want him to use the name SSBoMI and claims "copyright infringement". They claim that they don't doubt that he is Miwok, but he's NOT "Shingle Springs Miwok". Though he claims he is, and he represents 400 other Miwoks in the county.

However, now that a bigger issue has been raised... That perhaps SSBoMI are NOT Miwok Indians at all.

Read the comments section and make up your own mind.