{"id":69456,"date":"2023-11-25T17:01:07","date_gmt":"2023-11-25T17:01:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/celeband.com\/?p=69456"},"modified":"2023-11-25T17:01:07","modified_gmt":"2023-11-25T17:01:07","slug":"legal-battle-over-peter-cushings-resurrected-role","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/celeband.com\/celebrities\/legal-battle-over-peter-cushings-resurrected-role\/","title":{"rendered":"Legal battle over Peter Cushing\u2019s resurrected role"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

A horror film company is suing for \u00a3200,000 after Peter Cushing was \u201cresurrected\u201d in Star Wars spin-off Rogue One.<\/p>\n

Cushing, who died of cancer in 1994 aged 81, starred in numerous chilling Hammer outings from the 1950s to the 1970s, notably as Dr Van Helsing in five Dracula movies.<\/p>\n

He also appeared in the first Star Wars film in 1977 as Grand Moff Tarkin, the imperial officer in charge of the Death Star.<\/p>\n

His character was later \u201crecreated\u201d using special effects for 2016\u2019s $1billion-grossing Rogue One.<\/p>\n

But Disney companies Lucasfilm and Lunak Heavy Industries (UK), which made Rogue One, are now being sued, along with the executors of Cushing\u2019s estate and his former agent.<\/p>\n

Don’t miss… <\/strong> Star Wars Rogue One fans dealt bad news for Andor<\/strong><\/p>\n

London-based Tyburn Film Productions, a rival to Hammer, says it had the rights over the star being resurrected by tech after signing a contract with Cushing.<\/p>\n

But the Disney companies argue that they own the images used in 2016 because they came from the original Star Wars movie.<\/p>\n

Jonathan Hill, barrister for the Disney firms, told High Court Judge Francesca Kaye that Tyburn signed a deal with Cushing in 1993 over him appearing in a TV movie \u201cprovisionally entitled a Heritage Of Horror\u201d which was never made.<\/p>\n

Part of that contract \u201chad sought to make provision for the fact that Mr Cushing was terminally ill and so there was doubt as to whether he might be able to contribute to the TV movie\u201d.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Tyburn says this gave it the right to veto the star\u2019s special effects image being reproduced if the film was not made.<\/p>\n

Mr Hill said the claim to have first dibs on SFX use of Cushing\u2019s image was \u201cnot realistic\u201d, as Tyburn had never recorded any footage of him to recreate the star.<\/p>\n

He added: \u201cMr Cushing never \u00adprovided any performance which could be so used.\u201d<\/p>\n

Tom Moody-Stuart KC, for Tyburn, told the judge: \u201cMy clients were given a contractual right to be the first to use or the right to withhold consent for Mr Cushing\u2019s performance rights being reproduced by technological means.<\/p>\n

\u201cLucasfilm needed two consents for it to be fair \u2013 one from the estate and one from Tyburn. This is something that at the very least is an arguable claim.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge reserved her judgment.<\/p>\n