Take-Two sued by <i>Warriors</i> actor

Man who played Cyrus reportedly claims game publisher never obtained the rights to use his likeness.

by

Outside of being named one of the Top 10 Most Violent Video Games by the Family Media Guide, Rockstar Games' The Warriors (based on the film of the same name) has avoided much of the outcry generated by the developer's other efforts, like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Bully.

The New York Daily News is reporting that Roger Hill, the actor whose reverberating "Can you dig it?" practically defined the charismatic gang leader Cyrus and gave the film one of its most quotable lines, is suing Take-Two Interactive over the game. Hill, who now works in a Manhattan business college's library, says Take-Two approached him with an offer to use his name and voice in the game, but he rejected their initial offer and they never followed up. But when The Warriors was released for the PlayStation 2 and Xbox last year, Cyrus and Hill's likeness still showed up in the game.

Hill's suit seeks $250,000 and a court order barring the publisher from using his likeness. A Take-Two spokesman told the paper that Hill's claims were groundless, and that the company does possess the rights to use Hill's likeness and Cyrus in its game.

Discussion

146 comments
chingaso619
chingaso619

why sue? shouldn't he be proud of himself for being in a actual video game after years of the original film's release? i know i would

Panther_Dud_E3
Panther_Dud_E3

Well if that was someone else's voice he can't really sue them

vicious4
vicious4

take-two is getting sued by everybody!!

sohaibz
sohaibz

Whoa !! I never thought that he's a librarian now ....

bigC2006
bigC2006

There is no denying that the game is good but OMFG if he is so pathetic to sue them over a characteristic then he must be more sad then a prostetute on clap week!lol!What is the point of sueing them for £250,000 thats like 50p to them and i agree with Blind-Folded woops sue me i am using his characteristic !

broker1
broker1

IM SUEING BETHESDA (sp?) FOR OBLIVION..... IN THE CHARACTER CREATION SECTION I CAN MAKE A FACE WITH A REMARKABLE LIKENESS TO MYSELF. I DIDN'T SELL THEM MY LIKENESS RIGHTS. this is crap, stop defending this guy.

Vulpis
Vulpis

Hmmm. Just went back and read Ninjiz' comment about SAG contracts..another question to ask--is Hill still *in* SAG, or has he let his membership lapse (IIRC, isn't there a minimum number of acting jobs per year required to remain in the guild or something)? If he has, is he still covered by the guild policies? Basic problem here is that there's a metric buttload of little but important details that weren't in this article to be able to decide if Hill's a money-grubbing has-been or not...though I'm sure the lawyers on both sides have access to the info. Side note--was the Warriors game out before or after GTA:SA, I forget? Be interesting to map chronological order of the 'problem games' vs. the order they're being sued about--I wouldn't be surprised if you'd find that its a case of 'Whoo, people got money for GTA...let's dig for dirt in their older stuff and see what we can loot!'

Vulpis
Vulpis

You know, I notice that the original article mentions that Hill was approached concerning his *name* and *voice*, not his *likeness*. I am seriously wondering if they were asking him if he'd be interested in doing *new* voice work for the game, and Mr. Librarian thought they were asking for rights to use the existing material and likeness. Granted, this all depends on what rights Take-Two were granted by the license (or whatever) from whoever actually owns the *movie*--it may be a case of the movie company granting rights they didn't actually have, and Hill trying to slap the wrong people for it. OTOH, it could be a case that Hill actually *did* sign away likeness and voice rights (for that movie and derived works), and is trying to get Take-Two to give him money for it because he either doesn't know or doesn't remember the original contract. ;-) Or he's trying to get money out Take-Two before they find out he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on, which is why he's demanding such a small sum. ;-)

migi1688
migi1688

Wow anybody would sue i would sue damn if it was some other actor they would be pissed to if they didnt get paid

bb_buster
bb_buster

why wait till now to sue Take 2 the games been released for almost a year

Blind-folded
Blind-folded

Even if he gets $250,000, at the end of the day, Take Two will be more known and it gets more publicity and etc.

_Sam_
_Sam_

Poor Take-Two. What will happen to them next? :(

Artemis_D
Artemis_D

"That is the best typo I've seen in months. You made my morning." Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night ...!

PiPbOY0
PiPbOY0

As THEGREATGUERO says, CAN YOU DIG IT

damage_3105
damage_3105

Who hasn't sued Take-Two Honestly. He musn't being going that well when he needs to sue a company.

comboz
comboz

hey, it's not pathetic! washed up actors need to get paid too!

Flan_Man
Flan_Man

Kicking a downed horse. How classy!

Rebochan
Rebochan

Can't a day go by where Take-Two isn't getting sued? Sheesh.

winterblink
winterblink

The guy's a LIBRARIAN now? Hah! No wonder he's suing.. what else has he got. Oh yeah... his books.

swamp_thing
swamp_thing

Good luck Roger Hill, i hope he wins. You can't go putting people in a game without some form of payment. They are making money off his likeness, they could have used another actor but wanted to trade on the authenticity of the film (so they are making profit from his likeness)

faizali86
faizali86

bad news for take two. cant wait to see what comes out of this.

ronjonss04
ronjonss04

Take-two being sued is the new fad obviously.

ReyWing
ReyWing

"Take-Two approached him with an offer to use his name and voice in the game, but he rejected their initial offer and they never followed up ... A Take-Two spokesman told the paper that Hill's claims were groundless, and that the company does possess the rights to use Hill's likeness and Cyrus in its game." How can Take2 possess the rights when Hill rejected the offer to obtain the rights? That makes as much sense as 1+1=5.

sniper_99
sniper_99

I think he should be happy that he is in the game

jaredgood1
jaredgood1

quote: Artemis_D - "That may be true, but with as MAN BLOWS as Take Two Interactive has taken this year, it's not exactly helping them." That is the best typo I've seen in months. You made my morning.

soniqstylz
soniqstylz

>>>>but I HIGHLY doubt they mentioned his likeness as it would have been included with rights to make the game in the first place. Not true. Note Al Pacino in the Godfather v. Scarface. He gave rights to his likeness for Scarface, but not Godfather.

pspmad1
pspmad1

llllllllllaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrsssssssss come ou and ppppppppppllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy thats a classic

Autolycus
Autolycus

more americans trying to get rich without doing any work. no wonder this country is falling apart

FyNoMeNoN
FyNoMeNoN

lol.. they took his likeness without him knowing.. thats interisting

priest17
priest17

daa his out for money or else he would of sued T2 for icecream and candy. And also I highly toubt that Hill cares about T2 other lawsuits.

Ninjiz
Ninjiz

"But surely Take-two owns licence & rights from the film studio to publish the vido game. In that case that surely encompasses use of the 'character's' likeness." AGAIN, you are INCORRECT. The actor still owns the likeness of himself, UNLESS he waived that right in the contract with the movie company. Like people said before, in the godfather game, Al pachinos character looks NOTHING like or SOUNDS like him. Because EA did not pay Al money, or get the right to use his likeness DESPITE EA having the rights to make a game based on the movie. SAME thing goes for all the Bond games. It took MANY sequals to get Pierces likeness, after they were finally able to negotiate with him. This isnt a comic book, so it does not automaticly encompass the likeness of teh actor JUST because he played a character. Despite it being a character its STILL played by an actor. And the fact that Take two Went to him in the FIRST place SHOWS this. He refused their offer, and they did it anyway, and used his voice from the movie. He HAS a case, unless he waived it with the movie company. And since he is suing i doubt he did that.

AlexJ-
AlexJ-

I'm guessing Roger Hill is broke? :|

metdevthegamer
metdevthegamer

Darth_Tigris "Lawwwwwyerrrrrrrrrrs, come out and plaaaaayaaaayyyy!" ROFL, that's f**king funny. All laughing aside............nah, I'll continue to laugh, nothing noteworthy about this article. He just wants money because it's a moneymaker, same crap everyone else pulls.

orangebrat
orangebrat

He's not jumping on a bandwagon nor is he pathetic for this lawsuit. He didn't give them permission to use his likeness; thus he has every right to do this. I hope he wins and gets even more.

slickr
slickr

Woow, will Take-two law-suits ever stop!?

daqua_99
daqua_99

Can Rockstar make one game that does not lead up to a court or a government enquiry?

broker1
broker1

But surely Take-two owns licence & rights from the film studio to publish the vido game. In that case that surely encompasses use of the 'character's' likeness. So Mr. Hill, you're not in the game CYRUS IS! These types of frivolous lawsuits are the bane of creative freedom!

LordZeusSSGoku
LordZeusSSGoku

I don't get what people are complaining about. If this WASN'T Take Two, no one would care. This is the first lawsuit against them that actually makes sense.

Artemis_D
Artemis_D

"$25,000-$50,000 won't be bankrupting anyone. Get some fresh air, guys." That may be true, but with as man blows as Take Two Interactive has taken this year, it's not exactly helping them. It may not break the bank, but it's got to tear at emotions. I'm frustrated, and I'm not even involved!

Artemis_D
Artemis_D

Okay ... this game has been on the shelves for nearly a year. Why is this just now becoming an issue for him?

AlphaGholiath
AlphaGholiath

It's funny, the guy who plays Cyrus in the movie didn't get the part until the last minute.

japam
japam

LAWWYERRRRRS COME OUT AND PLAAAYYYYYYYYYY quoted for hilarity. Thank you Darth Tigress! Some folks around here need to relax and stop spewing hate at this guy. He's not out to deprive gamers of anything, he just wants what he believes is his fair share. $250,000 would not sink Take 2, and most likely everyone will settle out of court for a tenth of that anyway. $25,000-$50,000 won't be bankrupting anyone. Get some fresh air, guys.

gtrslinger
gtrslinger

honestly , who cares about the game OR the actor. lol

DrKill09
DrKill09

If they were to re-release the Warriors without the original Cyrus, it would look stupid. This man is a moron. Doesn't he like money. He should've taken the offer in the first place. As if Rockstar need more problems.

thebill1979
thebill1979

If you've played The Godfather: The Game, you know that the NP of Michael looks and sounds NOTHING like Al Pacino (who played Michael in the movies). That is because Al didn't give EA Games consent to use his likeness in the game, even though EA had the licensing rights. Unless the actor in question in this case had something in his contract when he did the movie that waved his rights in concern to things like this, then he has a strong suite. Take Two will most likely just settle out of court.

Karjah
Karjah

take twos earned this. You can only get away with putting out violent garbage for so long. Hot coffee was nothing new it was coming for a while. I'm just glad it's a publisher that got hit rather then a game developer.