Warriors actor sues Take-Two
by Ross Miller 
{ Jun 28th 2006 at 2:55PM }
Adding another issue to Take-Two's already-full plate, actor Roger Hill is suing the publisher for the publisher's alleged use of his likeness in the game The Warriors. Hill is seeking $250,000 and a court order barring the use of his likeness, according to the New York Daily News.In the film, Hill plays Cyrus, the leader of the Gramercy Riffs and is subsequently assassinated by the leader of the Rogues, who frames the Warriors for the murder.
Hill, who now works at a Manhattan business college library, claims Take-Two approached him about using his voice and likeness, but he rejected the offer and the publisher never renegotiated. A spokesman for Take-Two claims that the company "has a valid third-party license for the rights to use Roger Hill's likeness and the character of Cyrus in The Warriors videogame and related marketing materials."
[via GamesIndustry.biz]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
TrickAssP @ Jun 28th 2006 4:45PM
CAN YOU DIG IT??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!
DannyBoy @ Jun 28th 2006 4:55PM
It's his turf ... his little piece of turf!!!!
Player1 @ Jun 28th 2006 5:01PM
Whoever has the rights to the movie has the rights to the character. This guy has been fooled by some scumbag lawyer. It wasn't JT was it?
Jeff @ Jun 28th 2006 5:10PM
"Whoever has the rights to the movie has the rights to the character."
Not an expert in contract law, are we?
They may have the right to the *character*. They do not automatically have the right to use any particular actor's *likeness*. That depends on his contract, something neither you nor I are privy to.
Player1 @ Jun 28th 2006 5:32PM
I know I don't have 10 stars or anything, but I stand by what I said. The likeness is of a character this guy played, not him. Is the character in the game Roger Hill who works at a business library and wears dockers, or is it Cyrus who slicks his hair back and wears brown reptile skin?
Player1 @ Jun 28th 2006 5:35PM
Obviously a contract that says something different would change things, but generally, that's how it works. Probably for reasons like this?
Judd @ Jun 28th 2006 5:58PM
EA had the rights to "The Godfather" but they didn't have the rights to Al Pacino. Speaking of Godfather, the writer of the book (Mario Puzo) wrote a sequel called "The Sicilian". Even though that was made into a film, since it was not made by Paramount they didn't have the rights to the character of Michael Corleone. Rights are complicated and in some cases (such as sports) a person doesn't even have the rights to show pictures of a real life person as they are a registered trademark of Major Leage Baseball... So any company needs to make sure that just because they get the general rights doesn't mean they get the complete rights.
32_footsteps @ Jun 28th 2006 6:03PM
Jeff has it quite right. By law, a person controls the rights to their own image. It's illegal to profit off of someone's image without their consent. This is why a person has to sign a waiver before they can appear on a non-news television show, or a movie, or the like.
Moreover, no actor with any sense would sign away the rights to their likeness when they sign for a movie. Rockstar's best chance of prevailing (presuming they don't settle out of court, which is the most sensible thing for them to do) would be to show that their video game depiction of the character was different enough from the actor such as to be considered a reasonable attempt at respecting the actor's request.
Player1 @ Jun 28th 2006 6:18PM
If you look at the character from the game, who does it resemble, Roger Hill or Cyrus? If it's Cyrus, then the movie has the rights. Roger Hill did not create the characters clothes, write his lines, etc. Do you think Roger Hill has the rights to the character Cyrus?
Probot @ Jun 28th 2006 7:32PM
"If you look at the character from the game, who does it resemble, Roger Hill or Cyrus?"
Robert Hill is Cyrus. The character obviously resembles him. It's not legal to use a person's likeness (i.e. physical appearance) in a game or movie unless they give specific consent. In this case, he didn't. So he's suing, and Rockstar will probably settle out of court.
Instead of wondering how Rockstar will get out of it, I think it's probably more reasonable to guess how much they'll settle for. I'd say $100,000 is the most he'll get.
Probot @ Jun 28th 2006 7:36PM
"Robert Hill is Cyrus."
Are you saying Cyrus is based on Robert Hill? If you are, you are dead wrong buddy. And that kind of nonesense just makes your point lose all meaning. Trying to correct someone and then making a dumb mistake like that... So lame.
A better wording would be Cyrus is Robert Hill.
Debikul @ Jun 28th 2006 9:21PM
That guy in the pic looks like Peter Dante.
Peter Dante should sue Roger Hill for being such a lame-o.
Peter Dante on the right with shirt pulled over his head.
Great movie by the way.
Debikul @ Jun 28th 2006 9:23PM
Oops!
Here is the link for Peter Dante that I forgot in my last comment. My bad.
http://www.imdb.com/gallery/ss/0456554/Ss/0456554/2428.jpg?path=pgallery&path_key=Dante,%20Peter
terminal @ Jun 28th 2006 9:32PM
What a moron, like anyone even knows who that guy is.
Debikul @ Jun 28th 2006 9:39PM
Ken: "I think they are starting to catch on to our casual bullshit. We need a new plan!"
Kaz: "Hmm...how about if we use blunt and obvious bullshit in place of the casual stuff. You know...bring it to them hard.
Ken: "Ahh..I see. So if we feed them a more raw and intense ego-riddled, full of ourselves bullshit we will keep ground?"
Kaz: "Exactly."
Ken: "Yes..yes...the Crab people will be pleased."
Kaz: "Yes, Crab people."
Ken: "Oh but what if they attack for massive dama..."
Kaz: "Rrrrriiiiiiidddddggggggeeeeee...."
Ken: "rrrrrrrraaaaaaacccceeeeeeer! Haha! Yes, yes, I almost forgot about Ridge Racer. Wheew!"
Ken and Kaz laugh together for a minute, take a shot of sake, realize that they are doomed and retire to the bedroom where Kaz is obviously the bitch in the relationship.
PWNED!
Debikul @ Jun 28th 2006 9:42PM
Yo, delete this comment and my previous one. For some reason the comment posted in the wrong story. Sorry guys.
Coyote @ Jun 29th 2006 8:34AM
And thus this thread has veared off into a incomprehensible direction to never be seen nor heard from again.
I for one could care less, every company has at least a dozen of these suits going on at any given time. Taketwo messed up by not watching their P's and Q's and as to whether the character looks like him isnt an issue, its all up to his contract that being made in the 70's with a low budget I would assume he didnt get the rights to his own character(else he wouldn't be working in a library now). Anyways this should just go under Taketwos media whoreing like everything else I hear from them.
Terry @ Jun 29th 2006 9:17AM
Roger Hill has a good claim. This area of the law is called "Right of Publicity" and it governs the commercial use of a person's name, image or likeness. So while Take Two would be able to acquire the rights to use a character of Cyrus, that doesn't automatically mean they get to use the image of the actor who portrayed him. They're perfectly free to reimage Cyrus however they like, they control the "character" now, but not the voice or image of the actor without reaching a seperate agreement with the actor themselves.
Consider the following precedent:
Wendt v. Host International Inc., 197 F.3d 1284 (1999)
A company was making a series of airport bars styled around the TV show "Cheers". The bar included robotic copies of the "Norm" and "Cliff" characters who sat at the end of the bar. These robots were modeled after the actors who played Norm and Cliff, George Wendt and John Ratzenberger sued because the robots looked like them and played sound clips of their voices. The case was eventually settled out of court and the robots were redesigned to no longer resemble the actors and the voice clips were re-recorded by appropriatly compensated actors.