tom james Archives - Cokato Copyright Attorney: The Law Blog of Thomas James

When Your Car Is a Character

This post isn’t about cars with character. It’s about cars as characters. Specifically, the question whether it is possible to claim copyright protection in a car that appears in a book, movie, song, or other work.

Carroll Shelby Licensing v. Halicki et al.

If you’re like me, you’ve probably owned a car with character, or even several cars with character, at some time in your life. A used Volkswagen Jetta with a replacement alternator that was held in place with washers. An old Plymouth Duster with a floor and doors that rusted clean through before the slant-6 ever had a problem. A Honda Fit that . . . well, this is probably a good place to stop dredging up memories. This post isn’t about cars with character. It’s about cars as characters. Specifically, the question whether it is possible to claim copyright protection in a car that appears in a book, movie, song, or other work.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had occasion to address this very question in Carroll Shelby Licensing et al. v. Halicki et al, No. 23-3731 (9th Cir., May 27, 2025).

Gone in 60 Seconds and Sequela

In the 1974 movie, Gone in 60 Seconds, the protagonist is tasked with stealing forty-eight types of cars. He and his colleagues assign them names. They call the Ford Mustang with black stripes “Eleanor.” Action ensues.

Three movies incorporating elements of this one were made and released thereafter — The Junkman, Deadline Auto Theft, and a year 2000 remake of Gone in 60 Seconds. A car that was made to look like the Mustang in the original Gone in 60 Seconds appeared in these movies, as well. The message, “‘Eleanor’ from the movie Gone in 60 Seconds” was painted on its side.

Shelby contracted with Classic Recreations to produce “GT-500CR” Mustangs. Without going into all of the contractual and procedural details, the owner of the copyright in the first three movies eventually asserted a claim of copyright infringement, raising the question whether copyright can be claimed in “Eleanor,” the Ford Mustang car that appeared in the movies.

Character Copyrights

Fictional works generally are eligible for copyright protection. Sometimes copyright protection will extend to fictional characters within one as well. Mickey Mouse and Godzilla are examples.

_{NOTE: This blog post was not produced, sponsored or endorsed by Disney, and is not affiliated with Disney or any person, company or organization affiliated or associated with Disney.}

The test for independent character copyright protection is set out in DC Comics v. Towle. In sum, the character must:

have both physical and conceptual qualities;
be “sufficiently delineated” to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears; and
be “especially distinctive” with “some unique elements of expression.”

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that “Eleanor” failed to meet any of these criteria.

1. Physical and conceptual qualities

Eleanor had physical qualities, but the Court held that it lacked conceptual qualities. Conceptual qualities include “anthropomorphic qualities, acting with agency and volition, displaying sentience and emotion, expressing personality, speaking, thinking, or interacting with other characters or objects.” Shelby, supra. The character does not have to be human. It can be almost anything, so long as it has some of the above traits. Thus, the Batmobile could qualify.

The Court determined, however, that Eleanor the car lacked any of these conceptual qualities, likening her to prop rather than a character.

2. Sufficient delineation

Here, the Court determined that Eleanor lacked consistent traits. In some iterations, Eleanor appeared as a yellow and black Fastback Mustang; in others, as a gray and black Shelby GT-500 Mustang, or a rusty, paintless Mustang. The Court concluded that Eleanor was too lightly sketched to satisfy the “sufficient delineation” test.

3. Unique elements of expression

Having no regard at all for Eleanor’s feelings, the Court declared, “Nothing distinguishes Eleanor from any number of sports cars appearing in car-centric action films.” According to the Court, she was just a run-of-the-mill automobile. Accordingly, she failed the distinctiveness test.

Quiz

Just for fun, try your hand at applying the Towle test to determine which of these might qualify for copyright protection and which ones don’t:

Chuck Berry’s Maybeline
My Mother the Car
Prince’s Little Red Corvette
Chitty Chitty Bang Bang
Christine
KITT in Knight Rider
The Magic School Bus
Thomas the Tank Engine
Gumdrop
Dick Turpin
Truckster in National Lampoon’s Vacation
The Bluesmobile in The Blues Brothers
The Hearse
Herbie in The Love Bug
The DeLorean in Back to the Future
The Gnome-Mobile
Ecto-1 in Ghostbusters
Bessie in Doctor Who
General Lee in The Dukes of Hazzard
The Munster Coach in The Munsters
Shellraiser in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Benny the Cab in Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
Lightning McQueen in Cars
The Mystery Machine in Scooby-Doo
The Gadgetmobile in Inspector Gadget
Mustang Sally
Killdozer
Ivor the Engine
Tootle
Roary the Racing Car.

Give yourself 3,500 extra points if you are familiar with all of these references.

Points are not redeemable for value.

Concluding Thought

Even if a fictional character does not qualify for copyright protection, it might be protected as a trademark in some cases. The requirements for trademark protection are a subject for another day.

Copyrights in AI-Generated Content

Copyright registrations are being issued for works created with generative-AI tools, subject to some important qualifications. Also, Internet Archves revisited (briefly)

The U.S. Copyright Office has issued its long-awaited report on the copyrightability of works created using AI-generated output. The legality of using copyrighted works to train generative-AI systems is a topic for another day.

Key takeaways:

Copyright protects the elements of a work that are created by a human, but does not protect elements that were AI-generated (probably the key take-away from the Report) The is the “human authorship” requirement that the Copyight Office invoked in denying registration of Stephen Thaler’s AI-generated output. I wrote about that a couple of years ago in “AI Can Create But Is It Art?”
The Copyright Office believes existing law is adequate to deal with AI copyright issues; it does not believe any new legislation is needed
Using AI to assist in the creative process does not affect copyrightability
Prompts do not provide sufficient control over the output to be considered creative works.
Protection exists for the following, if they involve sufficient human creativity:
- Selection, coordination, and arrangement of AI-generated output
  - Modification of AI-generated content
    - Human-created elements distinguishable from AI-generated elements.

Prompts

A key question for the Copyright Office was whether a highly detailed prompt could suffice as human creative expression. The Office says no; “[P]rompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users of an AI system the authors of the output. Prompts essentially function as instructions that convey unprotectable ideas. While highly detailed prompts could contain the user’s desired expressive elements, at present they do not control how the AI system processes them in generating the output.”

How much control does a human need over the output-generation process to be considered an author? The answer, apparently, is “So much control that the AI mechanism’s contribution was purely rote or mechanical. “The fact that identical prompts can generate multiple different outputs further indicates a lack of human control.”

Expressive prompts

If the prompt itself is sufficiently creative and original, the expression contained in the prompt may qualify for copyright protection. For example, if a user prompts an AI tool to change a story from first-person to third-person point of view, and includes the first-person version in the prompt, then copyright may be claimed in the story that was included in the prompt. The author could claim copyright in the story as a “human-generated element” distinguishable from anything AI thereafter did to it. The human-created work must be perceptible in the output.

Registration of hybrid works

The U.S. Copyright Office has now issued several registrations for works that contain a combination of both human creative expression and AI-generated output. Examples:

Irontic, LLC has a registered copyright in Senzia Opera, a sound recording with “music and singing voices by [sic] generated by artificial intelligence,” according to the copyright registration. That material is excluded from the claim. The registration, however, does provide protection for the story, lyrics, spoken words, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of the sound recording.

Computer programs can be protected by copyright, but if any source code was generated by AI, it must be excluded from the claim. Thus, the Adobe GenStudio for Performance Marketing computer program is protected by copyright, but any source code in it that was AI-generated is not.

A record company received a copyright registration for human additions and modifications to AI-generated art.

As an example of a “selection, coordination and arrangement” copyright, there is the registration of a work called “A Collection of Objects Which Do Not Exist,” consisting of a collage of AI-generated images. “A Single Piece of American Cheese,” is another example of a registered copyright claim based on the selection, coordination, or arrangement of AI-generated elements.

China

A Chinese court has taken a contrary position, holding that an AI-generated image produced by Stable Diffusion is copyrightable because the prompts he chose reflected his aesthetic choices.

Internet Archives Postscript

In January, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in Hachette Book Group, Inc. v. Internet Archive. This came as no surprise. A couple of important things that bear repeating came out of this decision, though.

First, the Court of Appeals reaffirmed that fair use is an affirmative defense. As such, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the level of market harm the use has caused or may cause. While a copyright owner may reasonably be required to identify relevant markets, he/she/it is not required to present empirical data to support a claim of market harm. The defendant bears the burden of proof of a fair use defense, including proof pertinent to each of the four factors comprising the defense.

Confusion seems to have crept into some attorneys’ and judges’ analysis of the issue. This is probably because it is well known that the plaintiff bears the burden of proof of damages, which can also involve evidence of market harm. The question of damages, however, is separate and distinct from the “market harm” element of a fair use defense.

The second important point the Second Circuit made in Hatchette is that the “public benefit” balancing that Justice Breyer performed in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. needs to focus on something more than just the short-term benefits to the public in getting free access to infringing copies of works. Otherwise, the “public benefit” in getting free copies of copyright-protected stuff would outweigh the rights of copyright owners every time. The long-term benefits of protecting the rights of authors must also be considered.

True, libraries and consumers may reap some short-term benefits from access to free digital books, but what are the long-term consequences? [Those consequences, i.e.,] depriv[ing] publishers and authors of the revenues due to them as compensation for their unique creations [outweigh any public benefit in having free access to copyrighted works.]

Id.

They reined in Google v. Oracle.

Thomas James is a human. No part of this article was AI-generated.

Fair Use Decision in Thomson Reuters v. Ross

A court has handed down the first known ruling (to me, anyway) on “fair use” in the wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies that are pending in federal courts.

A court has handed down the first known ruling (to me, anyway) on “fair use” in the wave of copyright infringement lawsuits against AI companies that are pending in federal courts. The ruling came in Thomas Reuters v. Ross. Thomas Reuters filed this lawsuit against Ross Intelligence back in 2020, alleging that Ross trained its AI models on Westlaw headnotes to build a competing legal research tool, infringing numerous copyrights in the process. Ross asserted a fair use defense.

In 2023, Thomson Reuters sought summary judgment against Ross on the fair use defense. At that time, Judge Bibas denied the motion. This week, however, the judge reversed himself, knocking out at least a major portion of the fair use defense.

Ross had argued that Westlaw headnotes are not sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection and that even if they are, the use made of them was “fair use.” After painstakingly reviewing the headnotes and comparing them with the database materials, he concluded that 2,243 headnotes were sufficiently original to receive copyright protection, that Ross infringed them, and that “fair use” was not a defense in this instance because the purpose of the use was commercial and it competed in the same market with Westlaw. Because of that, it was likely to have an adverse impact on the market for Westlaw.

While this might seem to spell the end for AI companies in the many other lawsuits where they are relying on a “fair use” defense, that is not necessarily so. As Judge Bibas noted, the Ross AI was non-generative. Generative AI tools may be distinguishable in the fair use analysis.

I will be presenting a program on Recent Developments in AI Law in New Jersey this summer. This one certainly will merit mention. Whether any more major developments will come to pass between now and then remains to be seen.

New AI Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

Another copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit against an AI company was filed this week. This one pits news article publishers Advance Local Media, Condé Nast, The Atlantic, Forbes Media, The Guardian, Business Insider, LA Times, McClatchy Media Company, Newsday, Plain Dealer Publishing Company, POLITICO, The Republican Company, Toronto Star Newspapers, and Vox Media against AI company Cohere.

The complaint alleges that Cohere made unauthorized use of publisher content in developing and operating its generative AI systems, infringing numerous copyrights and trademarks. The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction and monetary damages.

New Trademark Fees Coming

The USPTO has announced that trademark fees in the United States will be undergoing significant increases on January 18, 2025. Here is a summary of the changes.

Application Fees

You will no longer enjoy a discounted fee for filing a TEAS-Plus application instead of a TEAS-Standard application. All applications. other than applications filed under the Madrid Protocol, will require a fee of $350 per class. For Madrid applications, the fee is $600 per class.

Additional fees must be paid in the following situations:

Insufficient information in the application: $100
Use of a custom-made identification of goods or services (as distinguished from using one of the pre-approved descriptions appearing in the Trademark ID Manual): $100
Each additional group of 1,000 characters over the first 1,000 characters in an identification: $200.

Madrid applications are not subject to these additional fees.

Statement of Use Fees

Beginning January 18, 2025, filing a Statement of Use or an Amendment to Allege Use will cost $150 each instead of $100.

Maintenance Fees

The filing fee for a declaration of use under Section 8 or 71 will be $325 per class instead of $225 per class.

The filing fee for an affidavit of incontestability under Section 15 will be $250 per class.

The filing fee for a Section 9 registration will be $350.

In conjunction with the Trademark Office’s new audit program, these fee increases provide a strong incentive to review your registration portfolio to see if there are any registrations, or registration classes, that should be removed.

You can find a full list of the fee changes here.

Another AI lawsuit against Microsoft and OpenAI

A.T. v. OpenAI LP, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Last June, Microsoft, OpenAI and others were hit with a class action lawsuit involving their AI data-scraping technologies. On Tuesday (September 5, 2023) another class action lawsuit was filed against them. The gravamen of both of these complaints is that these companies allegedly trained their AI technologies using personal information from millions of users, in violation of federal and state privacy statutes and other laws.

Among the laws alleged to have been violated are the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, California’s unfair competition law, Illinois’s Biometric Information Privacy Act, and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The lawsuits also allege a variety of common law claims, including negligence, invasion of privacy, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of the duty to warn, and such.

This is just the most recent lawsuit in a growing body of claims against big AI. Many involve allegations of copyright infringement, but privacy is a growing concern. This particular suit is asking for an award of monetary damages and an order that would require the companies to implement safeguards for the protection of private data.

Microsoft reportedly has invested billions of dollars in OpenAI and its app, ChatGPT.

The case is A.T. v. OpenAI LP, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 3:23-cv-04557 (September 5, 2023).

Is Microsoft “too big to fail” in court? We shall see.

A Recent Exit from Paradise

In his application for registration, Thaler had listed his computer, referred to as “Creativity Machine,” as the “author” of the work, and himself as a claimant. The Copyright Office denied registration on the basis that copyright only protects human authorship.

Over a year ago, Steven Thaler filed an application with the United States Copyright Office to register a copyright in an AI-generated image called “A Recent Entrance to Paradise.” In the application, he listed a machine as the “author” and himself as the copyright owner. The Copyright Office refused registration on the grounds that the work lacked human authorship. Thaler then filed a lawsuit in federal court seeking to overturn that determination. On August 18, 2023 the court upheld the Copyright Office’s refusal of registration. The case is Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. CV 22-1564 (BAH), 2023 WL 5333236 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 2023).

Read more about the history of this case in my previous blog post, “A Recent Entrance to Complexity.”

The Big Bright Green Creativity Machine

Taking the Copyright Office to court

Unsuccessful in securing a reversal through administrative appeals, Thaler filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming the Office’s denial of registration was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and not in accordance with the law….”

The court ultimately sided with the Copyright Office. In its decision, it provided a cogent explanation of the rationale for the human authorship requirement:

The act of human creation—and how to best encourage human individuals to engage in that creation, and thereby promote science and the useful arts—was thus central to American copyright from its very inception. Non-human actors need no incentivization with the promise of exclusive rights under United States law, and copyright was therefore not designed to reach them.

Id.

A Complex Issue

As I discussed in a previous blog post, the issue is not as simple as it might seem. There are different levels of human involvement in the use of an AI content generating mechanism. At one extreme, there are programs like “Paint,” in which users provide a great deal of input. These kinds of programs may be analogized to paintbrushes, pens and other tools that artists traditionally have used to express their ideas on paper or canvas. Word processing programs are also in this category. It is easy to conclude that the users of these kinds of programs are the authors of works that may be sufficiently creative and original to receive copyright protection.

At the other end of the spectrum are AI services like DALL-E and ChatGPT. These tools are capable of generating content with very little user input. If the only human input is a user’s directive to “Draw a picture,” then it would be difficult to claim that the author contributed any creative expression. That is to say, it would be difficult to claim that the user authored anything.

The difficult question – and one that is almost certain to be the subject of ongoing litigation and probably new Copyright Office regulations – is exactly how much, and what kind of, human input is necessary before a human can claim authorship. Equally as perplexing is how much, if at all, the Copyright Office should involve itself in ascertaining and evaluating the details of the process by which a work was created. And, of course, what consequences should flow from an applicant’s failure to disclose complete details about the nature and extent of machine involvement in the creative process.

Conclusion

The court in this case did not dive into these issues. The only thing we can safely take away from this decision is the broad proposition that a work is not protected by copyright to the extent it is generated by a machine.

Is Jazz Confusingly Similar to Music?

Is jazz confusingly similar to music? No, that wasn’t the issue in this case. It was a contest between APPLE JAZZ and APPLE MUSIC involving tacking.

Bertini v. Apple Inc., No. 21-2301 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Apple, Inc. attempted to register the trademark APPLE MUSIC for both sound recordings and live musical performances (among other things). Bertini, a professional musician, filed an opposition, claiming to have used the mark APPLE JAZZ in connection with live performances since 1985, and to have started using it in connection with sound recordings in the 1990s. Bertini argued that APPLE MUSIC would likely cause confusion with APPLE JAZZ.

The first question that popped into my head, of course, was whether a consumer would really be likely to confuse jazz with music. I mean, come on.

Sadly, however, that was not the legal issue in this case. The legal issue was whether, and in what circumstances, priority of use can be established by “tacking” a new trademark registration onto an earlier one for a mark in a different category of goods or services.

The Opposition Proceeding

Apple applied to register APPLE MUSIC as a trademark in several categories of services in IC 41, including the production and distribution of sound recordings, and organizing and presenting live musical performances. Bertini, a professional jazz musician, filed a notice of opposition to Apple’s application, on the basis that he has used the mark APPLE JAZZ in connection with live performances since 1985. In the mid-1990s, Bertini began using APPLE JAZZ to issue and distribute sound recordings. Bertini opposed Apple’s registration of APPLE MUSIC on the ground that it would likely cause confusion with Bertini’s common law trademark APPLE JAZZ.

The Trademark Trials and Appeals Board (TTAB) dismissed the opposition. Bertini appealed to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Appeal

On appeal, the parties did not dispute that there was a likelihood consumers would confuse Bertini’s use of APPLE JAZZ and Apple’s use of APPLE MUSIC. The only dispute on appeal was priority of use.

Apple, Inc. began using APPLE MUSIC in 2015, when it launched its music streaming service, nearly thirty years after Bertini had begun using APPLE JAZZ. Apple, however, argued that it was entitled to an earlier priority dating back to a 1968 registration of the mark APPLE for “Gramophone records featuring music” and “audio compact discs featuring music.” (The company had purchased the registration from Apple Corps, the Beatles’ record company.)

The TTAB agreed with Apple’s argument, holding that Apple was entitled to tack its 2015 use of APPLE MUSIC onto Apple Corp’s 1968 use of APPLE and therefore had priority over Bertini’s APPLE JAZZ.

The appellate court reversed, holding that Apple cannot tack its use of APPLE MUSIC for live musical performances onto Apple Corps’ use of APPLE for gramophone records, and that its application to register APPLE MUSIC must therefore be denied.

The Court of Appeals construed the tacking doctrine narrowly. Framing the question as “[W]hether a trademark applicant can establish priority for every good or service in its application merely because it has priority through tacking in a single good or service listed in its application,” the Court answered no. While Apple might have been able to use tacking to claim priority in connection with the production and distribution of sound recordings, it could not use that priority to establish priority with respect to other categories of services, such as organizing and presenting live performances.

Tag: tom james

When Your Car Is a Character

Carroll Shelby Licensing v. Halicki et al.

Gone in 60 Seconds and Sequela