Slash & Duff to sue Axl!

[kockstar99]

From Drowned in Sound.com

"Slash, Duff McKagan, and Matt Sorum left the group in 1996, and Axl Rose purchased the Guns'N'Roses name from the other founder members for ?2.4million in 1997. "

nice... looks like he should come out of this ok... how much is 2.4million pounds? in american dollars?

[jarmo]

From Drowned in Sound.com

"Slash, Duff McKagan, and Matt Sorum left the group in 1996, and Axl Rose purchased the Guns'N'Roses name from the other founder members for ?2.4million in 1997. "

And Axl Rose Buys "Guns N' Roses" Name - January, 1997


I don't know how it works since they always say Axl tricked them into signing over the name during the UYI tour. What did he buy in 1997 if he already controlled the name since the early 90s?  


/jarmo

[loretian]

I don't know how it works since they always say Axl tricked them into signing over the name during the UYI tour. What did he buy in 1997 if he already controlled the name since the early 90s?  

I've read before that he didn't get them to sign over the name, he just had them sign a contract which said he would get the rights to the name if they ever left the band.  Maybe that included him having to pay them out for it, which would explain why they were so willing to sign a document like that in the first place.

Either way, I'm convinced the "Slash side" of the story, of Axl tricking them into giving up the rights to the name by refusing to perform one night is not the whole story.

[Naupis]

What is everyone so hot and bothered for??? If they have no case, the judge will just throw it right out. What 9 out of 10 of you don't realize is that the ownership of the songs has nothing to do with the ownership of the name. I think there is an intense fear and paranoia on this board that these guys may have a legitimate case and that Axl may lose the right of final Veto, which is what he currently has. If it is frivilous, a judge will throw it out faster than Axl can fire a band member. But what if that doesn't happen? What if these guys actually win? What is everyone going to do then?


ANd btw, the timiing is coincidental given all the time they've had, but the reason this is happening now is because of the over whelming success of greatest hits. I am not sure anyone involved with GNR realized the potential the back catalog had, so now there is some serious scrambling going on to see who has the right to use it and for what purpose. This has more to do with 20 years from now than it does today. Slash/Duff own a large majority of a gold mine, were they to secure the rights to excersise their right to use s product they own an equal share in minus Axl's consent, there are significant earnings opportunities out there. Who can really blame them.

[RZ4]

Dont you think its a little presumptuous to assume that this is a promotion tactic?

Not presumptuous at all, in my opinion. Slash and Duff have had plenty of time to do this if they wanted to, yet they decide to do it now, a mere month away from their new band's album release?

[gezm]

What is everyone so hot and bothered for??? If they have no case, the judge will just throw it right out. What 9 out of 10 of you don't realize is that the ownership of the songs has nothing to do with the ownership of the name. I think there is an intense fear and paranoia on this board that these guys may have a legitimate case and that Axl may lose the right of final Veto, which is what he currently has. If it is frivilous, a judge will throw it out faster than Axl can fire a band member. But what if that doesn't happen? What if these guys actually win? What is everyone going to do then?


ANd btw, the timiing is coincidental given all the time they've had, but the reason this is happening now is because of the over whelming success of greatest hits. I am not sure anyone involved with GNR realized the potential the back catalog had, so now there is some serious scrambling going on to see who has the right to use it and for what purpose. This has more to do with 20 years from now than it does today. Slash/Duff own a large majority of a gold mine, were they to secure the rights to excersise their right to use s product they own an equal share in minus Axl's consent, there are significant earnings opportunities out there. Who can really blame them.

200% agree  

[Timothy]

What is everyone so hot and bothered for??? If they have no case, the judge will just throw it right out. What 9 out of 10 of you don't realize is that the ownership of the songs has nothing to do with the ownership of the name. I think there is an intense fear and paranoia on this board that these guys may have a legitimate case and that Axl may lose the right of final Veto, which is what he currently has. If it is frivilous, a judge will throw it out faster than Axl can fire a band member. But what if that doesn't happen? What if these guys actually win? What is everyone going to do then?


ANd btw, the timiing is coincidental given all the time they've had, but the reason this is happening now is because of the over whelming success of greatest hits. I am not sure anyone involved with GNR realized the potential the back catalog had, so now there is some serious scrambling going on to see who has the right to use it and for what purpose. This has more to do with 20 years from now than it does today. Slash/Duff own a large majority of a gold mine, were they to secure the rights to excersise their right to use s product they own an equal share in minus Axl's consent, there are significant earnings opportunities out there. Who can really blame them.

Okay so we can have Welcome to the Jungle on a soundtrack but not under the name Guns N? Roses?

[loretian]

What is everyone so hot and bothered for??? If they have no case, the judge will just throw it right out.

I'm "hot and bothered", because as far as I can tell, this is a shitty move on the part of Slash and Duff.  I was really excited about VR, and I'm going to their May 15th show, and I don't like reading about this kind of shit.

I think there is an intense fear and paranoia on this board that these guys may have a legitimate case and that Axl may lose the right of final Veto, which is what he currently has. If it is frivilous, a judge will throw it out faster than Axl can fire a band member. But what if that doesn't happen? What if these guys actually win? What is everyone going to do then?

Of course.  If anyone has a differing opinion from your own, obviously it's due to "fear and paranoia".  

ANd btw, the timiing is coincidental given all the time they've had, but the reason this is happening now is because of the over whelming success of greatest hits. I am not sure anyone involved with GNR realized the potential the back catalog had, so now there is some serious scrambling going on to see who has the right to use it and for what purpose. This has more to do with 20 years from now than it does today. Slash/Duff own a large majority of a gold mine, were they to secure the rights to excersise their right to use s product they own an equal share in minus Axl's consent, there are significant earnings opportunities out there. Who can really blame them.

I don't understand the exact legalties of a case like this, but I don't see why they would have any right to say whether the songs are used in any way, regardless of miss opportunities.  Of course, they should get the royalties for songs they've written, but they choose to leave the band, and no longer be a part of the entity which owns the rights to the songs.  What they want or wish would happen has nothing to do with the legal reality of a situation like this.

As far as the timing, you have a good point about the Greatest Hits, but considering how shmucky of a move this is, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some promotional thought behind it as well.

[killingvector]

There is so much irony here. slash and duff are suing for about a million dollars, essentially they want axl's advance for CD to fund their own tour. They are suing axl for money that doesn't exist. It's not like axl took money from them; he simply refused to use the songs in movies, thus no profit was made. If someone walks away from a band, legally....and it was legal or the old guys would have overturned the contract, then their controling rights are released.

The old guys have received royalties for their old gnr songs; axl isn't impinging on that. Hell, as my friend Saul pointed out, Ozzy once re-recorded two albums so the old members of his solo band couldn't profit from the sale of the old pressings. Axl could be a bitch and do that, but he hasn't. He simply has exercised discretion in licensing use of the gnr catalog. As the sole owner of the Guns N Roses business, he has that right. He has controlling interest over those songs. He doesn't own them, because royalties are still being distributed, but he is the CEO of the GnR company and as such has the final decision of how the songs are used.

As for the matter of how the old guys left, I recall the same story mentioned above. Axl made them sign a contract saying if they ever left the band, the parting member would sell their rights to Axl. The old guys left and axl paid them out. End of story.

[Timothy]

There is so much irony here. slash and duff are suing for about a million dollars, essentially they want axl's advance for CD to fund their own tour. They are suing axl for money that doesn't exist. It's not like axl took money from them; he simply refused to use the songs in movies, thus no profit was made. If someone walks away from a band, legally....and it was legal or the old guys would have overturned the contract, then their controling rights are released.

The old guys have received royalties for their old gnr songs; axl isn't impinging on that. Hell, as my friend Saul pointed out, Ozzy once re-recorded two albums so the old members of his solo band couldn't profit from the sale of the old pressings. Axl could be a bitch and do that, but he hasn't. He simply has exercised discretion in licensing use of the gnr catalog. As the sole owner of the Guns N Roses business, he has that right. He has controlling interest over those songs. He doesn't own them, because royalties are still being distributed, but he is the CEO of the GnR company and as such has the final decision of how the songs are used.

As for the matter of how the old guys left, I recall the same story mentioned above. Axl made them sign a contract saying if they ever left the band, the parting member would sell their rights to Axl. The old guys left and axl paid them out. End of story.

agree

[Naupis]

This is the whole issue of the lawsuit, whether he has controlling interest or not. If Slash/Duff/Izzy/Steve want to put a song on something that is 80% of the company voting one way, that makes up a majority. In the past Axl has just decided he has final veto power in name only, but if he is not in the majority vote of the share holders, he may not have that right. That is the whole issue of the lawsuit, and that is what a judge will rule on. If they all own enough of the songs to get 51% of a vote minus Axl on whether to use something or not, there is a very good chance Axl could be in for a world of hurt because he would effectively have zero control over the back catalog from here on out. And that has to scare the living bejesus out of him and every axl-zealot.

[Naupis]

If they really did sell all of their rights, won't a judge just throw this right out and tell them to get a life? Why is anyone even concerned then?

[madagas]

I am not concerned at all.

[kockstar99]

If Slash/Duff/Izzy/Steve want to put a song on something that is 80% of the company voting one way, that makes up a majority.

They are not 80% of anything Guns n Roses related anymore.. They quit... They recieve royalties from the music they contributed to... They have no say on Guns n Roses anymore than Chris Webber does...

Its a shitty way to get thier name in the press and sell records.. like the Biggie/Tupac feud .. nothing sells like sex and controversy...

riding the coat tails of the GnR name....

[Naupis]

Kockstar-

You're misinformed. They may not be in the band, but they own part of those songs whether they are in GNR or not. It is for that reason Axl couldn't re-record Jungle and put it on the Black Hawk Down Soundtrack. Axl is as powerless without their signatures as they are without his when it comes to the back catalog. The issue the court is going to decide if majority rules or not when deciding how something is used and when.

[Freya]

as my friend Saul pointed out, Ozzy once re-recorded two albums so the old members of his solo band couldn't profit from the sale of the old pressings

At Sharon's urging no doubt.  But, she's a very good businesswoman, that has protected his interests over the years.  

[Timothy]

Them being able to say that this or that song can be used here and there would also be them having a say in what goes on in the GN?R camp, which they have no say in, cause they don?t have any rights to the GN?R name legally

[Naupis]

But they physically own the songs, and that is the issue at hand. It has nothing to do with the Name, you people need to get past that. They own the actual music and songs irrelevant of the GNR name. THat is a whole nother issue. A judge may rule that a majority is needed to use those songs, and if one sides gets it they can use it. Maybe without the GNR name on it, but that the song itself can be used under an anonymous(but everyone would know a song like WTTJ). It is a messed up situation, but all of the "well they are out of GNR and have no say in GNR camp" people need to realize that is not what they are going to court over.

[Timothy]

Yes and they receive royalties for those songs. But the person with the rights to do what every they want with those songs is Axl, and if he did so then they would receive royalties for their hard work.

[kockstar99]

But they physically own the songs,

no they dont... Guns n Roses owns the rights to release those songs on movies

It has nothing to do with the Name,

yes it does... They get more press with the Guns n Roses name... Its all about the name... they are bitter...

They own the actual music and songs irrelevant of the GNR name.

NO Geffen owns those songs... Guns n Roses performs them.. Thats one reason why the name Guns n Roses is still important

A judge may rule that a majority is needed to use those songs,

a majority of the owners of the songs... The owner of the songs is Geffen.. not The cowriters, The performers, The Producers, The Recording studio, The Engineer... Guns n Roses owns the songs, The back catalogs, The licneses, The name and They all quit Guns n Roses...

and if one sides gets it they can use it. Maybe without the GNR name on it,

impossible... its copyrighted and owned by Guns n Roses..

but that the song itself can be used under an anonymous(but everyone would know a song like WTTJ).

no it cant.... If it could there wouldnt be a lawsuit over this...

It is a messed up situation, but all of the "well they are out of GNR and have no say in GNR camp" people need to realize that is not what they are going to court over.

nope its not... They are going after publicity and a public fued with Axl Rose...

Thats why they are only suing for 1 million dollars.. coz its not about the money or them thinking they have a chance to win... They know they dont have a leg to stand on when it comes to this....

The movies they listed would have paid more than 1 million dollars...

Its a scam and gutless way to sell VR records....