Take-Two sued by Warriors actor

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

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.

145 Comments

  • Panther_Dud_E3

    Posted Jan 13, 2007 11:23 am PT

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

  • vicious4

    Posted Jul 28, 2006 2:52 pm PT

    take-two is getting sued by everybody!!

  • sohaibz

    Posted Jul 17, 2006 7:01 am PT

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

  • bigC2006

    Posted Jul 13, 2006 10:46 am PT

    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

    Posted Jul 4, 2006 8:10 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jul 1, 2006 1:12 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jul 1, 2006 12:59 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 29, 2006 2:02 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 29, 2006 12:15 pm PT

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

  • Blind-folded

    Posted Jun 29, 2006 3:53 am PT

    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_

    Posted Jun 29, 2006 1:35 am PT

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

  • Artemis_D

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 4:35 pm PT

    "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

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 4:21 pm PT

    As THEGREATGUERO says, CAN YOU DIG IT

  • damage_3105

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 4:10 pm PT

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

  • comboz

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 3:42 pm PT

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

  • hemakm3

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 1:26 pm PT

    loser

  • Flan_Man

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 1:09 pm PT

    Kicking a downed horse. How classy!

  • Rebochan

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 10:40 am PT

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

  • winterblink

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 10:10 am PT

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

    Oh yeah... his books.

  • swamp_thing

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 10:03 am PT

    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

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 9:54 am PT

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

  • ronjonss04

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 9:46 am PT

    Take-two being sued is the new fad obviously.

  • ReyWing

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 8:02 am PT

    "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

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 7:47 am PT

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

  • jaredgood1

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 7:38 am PT

    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.

  • mattxavier

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 6:43 am PT

    Law suit? what a looser.

  • EddyG0RD0

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 6:22 am PT

    what a leech moron

  • soniqstylz

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 5:39 am PT

    >>>>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

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 5:35 am PT

    llllllllllaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrsssssssss come ou and ppppppppppllllllllllllllllaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyy thats a classic

  • Autolycus

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 5:23 am PT

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

  • FyNoMeNoN

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 3:08 am PT

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

  • priest17

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 1:51 am PT

    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

    Posted Jun 28, 2006 12:58 am PT

    "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-

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 11:57 pm PT

    I'm guessing Roger Hill is broke?

  • metdevthegamer

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 11:43 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 11:38 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 10:56 pm PT

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

  • daqua_99

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 10:38 pm PT

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

  • broker1

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 10:25 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 10:13 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 9:37 pm PT

    "$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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 9:34 pm PT

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

  • AlphaGholiath

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 9:22 pm PT

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

  • japam

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 9:10 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 8:55 pm PT

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

  • DrKill09

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 8:27 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 8:19 pm PT

    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

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 8:08 pm PT

    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.

  • Manhattan212

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 7:51 pm PT

    The Warriors isn't THAT violent!

  • jrapczak

    Posted Jun 27, 2006 7:04 pm PT

    Doesn't matter, nobody plays that game anyways. It's about as fun as a half way developed Table Tennis demo.

advertisement
Click Here

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!

Related Game

The Warriors Boxshot
The Warriors

Game Stats

  • Rank:
    945 of 59,114
    (down by 11)
    PS2 Rank:
    82 of 3,663
    Tracking:
    3,436 Track It»
    Wishlists:
    1,134 Wish It»
  • Users Now Playing:
    662
  • Number of Players:

    1-2 | Offline Modes: Competitive, Cooperative

  • Top 5 User Tags:
    1. the warriors
    2. warriors
    3. rockstar
    4. rockstar games
    5. rockstar toronto
  • Mature Rating Description

    Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language. Learn more

Full Game Details »Close
Also on

Recent News

See All News »

Site Blogs