Here Today... Gone To Hell!

So, the story allegedly goes like this.

In the old days a contract was set up to keep the band together.
Axl would keep the name but lose power to decide in GNR incorporated.


Axl went with it anyway and kept the name, and Duff and Slash left. However the label acquired power to decide in all matters GNR.
The way I see it this is why the label was able to reject Chinese Democracy demos and the record ended up sounding like the band worked on it too much. Songs kept being rejected, then rerecorded? rerecorded? etc..

So, if Duff and Slash are back, does that mean that they regain control from the Label and have free will on artistic decisions regarding songs and image?
Is that a possibility ?

I'm not 100% sure, but was it the contract in question that left the label with the power to reject the songs recorded?

I would think the label has that power anyway as long as they are paying for the recording sessions.

The label always had the power and ownership of all mastered recordings. Nothing changes because Slash and Duff are now involved (unless they draw up a completely new deal).

This would be my guess as well.

they proved that in the greatest hits lawsuit....all the details you need to know are there.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Background Facts Relevant To The Relationship Between UMG And Guns N' Roses

The relationship between Guns N' Roses and UMG's Geffen Records division dates back to 1986, when Geffen's corporate predecessor, The David Geffen Company, entered into a recording agreement with five individuals, Steven Adler, Izzy Stradlin, Michael 'Duff McKagan, Saul Hudson (p/k/a 'Slash'?) and W. Axl Rose, who were professionally known as 'Guns N' Roses.'? Hoffman Decl. ¶ 2. In 1992, Geffen's corporate predecessor entered into a new recording agreement with Messrs. Hudson, McKagan and Rose dated September 1, 1992 (hereinafter the 'Recording Agreement'?). Prior to the signing of the 1992 Recording Agreement, Adler and Stradlin had left the band (although they still retained a royalty interest in master recordings created under the original 1986 agreement during their tenure in the band.) Id.

Since 1992, the parties have executed various amendments to the Recording Agreement, including most notably, two amendments dated as of May 1, 1998. One of these amendments, see Froeling Decl. Ex. D, confirmed Slash's and Duff's departure from the band and their status as 'Leaving Members'? under the 1992 Recording Agreement, thereby relieving them of charges against their royalty accounts for the enormous recording costs and other expenses being incurred by Axl Rose (the only 'Remaining Member'[FN1] of Guns N' Roses) in connection with the recording of the new Guns N' Roses studio album. Hoffman Decl. ¶ 3. Slash and Duff, like Stradlin and Adler before them, retained a royalty interest in masters created under the Recording Agreement prior to their departure from the band. Id In the other May 1, 1998 amendment, see Hoffman Decl. Ex. A, Axl Rose agreed, among other things, to deliver that new studio LP (which was even then long overdue under the Recording Agreement) no later than March 1, 1999 and received a substantial advance from Geffen in return. Hence, although other individuals have joined Axl Rose in performing under the name 'Guns N' Roses'? since 1998, Rose is the only principal in the band. Id.

Wonder if this is long term, short term, trial basis or a periodical occurrence...Could this be considered the 2016 GNR All Star Tour?

The way I see it... Slash & Duff are joining the current band. Meaning they're employees unless proven otherwise.

A change of contract would do the trick.

I would imagine they are very well paid employees. However, the logo change and the fact that they are only marketing Duff-Slash-Axl means they may still be sitting on the 1992 partnership deal.

Obviously just speculating.... :-\

I don't things within the band will change, status wise, but I do think that the label will look at the current line-up as a good as it's gonna get.  I'm not talking talent here, I'm talking about marketability and image.  The link between the label and Axl has been brought closer with the regrouping and it maybe that a re-negotiation and tolerance on future releases may edge closer into the bands favour from this point forward than the last 20 have yielded.

Exactly right.