Slash & Duff to sue Axl! part 2 (New info in Slash/Duff lawsuit)

[dave-gnfnr2k]

If slash and duff are claiming axl left the partnership in 1995 and they have the sole rights to say how the songs are to be used then why did they join axl in the lawsuit against geffen for releasing the GHs album.

If that letter is true then slash and duff wouldnt have needed axl to try and block the Ghs from being released and axl wouldnt have been allowed to bring a lawsuit against geffen since he didnt have any right to.

I think slash and duff will have a hard time explaining that one away.

[Stupid Head]

Maybe I can explain: Slash and Duff probably have new lawyers these days so these new lawyers had to dig up the bands old shit etc and while looking through old documents they came across this. It is probably because of that greatest hits lawsuit that they actually found out about this current situation.

[Stupid Head]

If not for publicity, Slash/Duff are probably using this lawsuit so they will be able to undisputedly "approve" permission for Velvet Revolver to re-record the old songs, and then only allow the Velvet Revolver recordings to be used in movies. Thus, they are screwing Axl out of performance benefits the same way that he supposedly planed to screw them. In a worst case scenario in which Axl loses out on all accounts, we will have ridiculous versions of "November Rain by Velvet Revolver" appearing on the Sponge Bob Squarepants soundtrack.

What I dont understand is, if Slash and Duff win, then they they can release rerecorded GNR songs as Velvet Revolver? Why do they need to own the GNR back catalog to do this because GNR released covers of KOHD and LALD yet they didnt own those songs.

How about this: can they rerelease the back catalog/old recordings under a different name when they own it eg, Velvet Revolver - Appetite For Destruction.
Or can they release new recordings under the GNR name as well.

They dont want to re release songs under VR.. they just want a say in using the old GNR tunes in movies etc.. as they have been losing income as Axl has been saying no to opportunities to use GNR tunes in movies

I know they dont. But some people seem to think that Velvet Revolver cant release covers of GNR songs unless they own them.

[justynius]

If not for publicity, Slash/Duff are probably using this lawsuit so they will be able to undisputedly "approve" permission for Velvet Revolver to re-record the old songs, and then only allow the Velvet Revolver recordings to be used in movies. Thus, they are screwing Axl out of performance benefits the same way that he supposedly planed to screw them. In a worst case scenario in which Axl loses out on all accounts, we will have ridiculous versions of "November Rain by Velvet Revolver" appearing on the Sponge Bob Squarepants soundtrack.

What I dont understand is, if Slash and Duff win, then they they can release rerecorded GNR songs as Velvet Revolver? Why do they need to own the GNR back catalog to do this because GNR released covers of KOHD and LALD yet they didnt own those songs.

How about this: can they rerelease the back catalog/old recordings under a different name when they own it eg, Velvet Revolver - Appetite For Destruction.
Or can they release new recordings under the GNR name as well.

They dont want to re release songs under VR.. they just want a say in using the old GNR tunes in movies etc.. as they have been losing income as Axl has been saying no to opportunities to use GNR tunes in movies

I know they dont. But some people seem to think that Velvet Revolver cant release covers of GNR songs unless they own them.

Technically, they CAN release covers - but (prior to this lawsuit) they would need to go through Axl, which we know obviously isn't happening. If it is declared that Axl has no power in Old GN'R decisions, Slash/Duff can do whatever they want with the songs. That is the primary thing accomplished with this lawsuit.

It is just speculation that VR would re-release covers to be used for movies/commercials instead of the original recordings - but that it IS made easily possible if this lawsuit goes through, VR IS covering GN'R with each appearance, it WAS Axl's strategy, and it WOULD be very beneficial to VR to do so. If the lawsuit goes through, there really would be no practical reason NOT to.

[Stupid Head]

Can they release new material under the GNR name though? Like a DVD with stuff from the Illusions tour or even(I know this is going a little far) new recordings/songs/albums under the GNR name thus having two different GNR's. Or do they only own previously released material.

[Eazy E]

. Slash and Duff belive they should have been included
    in the track slections as they were in the Live Era CD.

This can't be the case, because Slash and Duff did work extensively on Live Era.  Slash has publically commented on his involvement on Live Era, and so have several others involved.

did you read my post??? or did you just want to say the exact same thing that i said....  

Damn!  I wanted to be the first to point that out...

Dizzy you old fogey, buy some glasses.  

[Booker Floyd]

Right? Wrong?

Wrong...

Slash and Duff claim to actually be GUNS N' RSOES, since (regardless of who is using or owning the name) Axl is only 1 out of a 5 people partnership and they are 2 out of a 5 people partnership. And because of that they have more saying?

Slash and Duff claim to be the only members in the Original GNR partnership, which was three people (Axl, Slash and Duff).  They alledge that he relinquished his position in the partnership in a written document in exchange for the right to operate as "Guns N' Roses" regardless of the lineup.  They have more say because Axl allegedly forfeited his position in the partnership, thus becoming a Terminated Partner.  

Now they spin the case as if Axl left the band - not them - they never parted and were always 2/5 when Axl was putting himself in a 1/5 position?

No, theyre stating that Axl left the business partnership, not the band.  The fact that they left the band Guns N' Roses doesnt seem to change their roles as members in the Original GNR partnership
(yet), which controls the old material.

This could lead to Slash and Duff keeping Axl from playing the old songs, using the name and performing under it. But on the other hand, Axl can't keep them from playing the old songs, re-record them or anything?

1) No...the name is not the issue.  It appears that the nature of the alleged document in which Axl gives up his role in the partnership is so that he can keep the name.  

2) He can "play" any song he wants to.  Re-recording and trying to license or release them however...

3) Nobody can keep VR from playing anything, however theres no reason to believe that they would want to record old songs, and even in the slight chance that was true, they would surely encounter the same problems Axl had with his re-recording scheme if not due to newly limited control, but writing issues.

It has nothing to do with royalties or songwriting credits.

Actually, it seems to have a lot to do with royalties.  The punitive damages are for the potential profit loss, and the whole licensing issue revolves around royalties.  

Songwriting credits?  I dont believe so.

It's about who makes all the money that lies beyond that (licensing etc.).

Well...yeah.  

Plus Slash and Duff can't use the name GUNS N' ROSES anymore, but they can keep Axl from using it?

Theres no indication that they can, or intend to stop Axl from using the Guns N' Roses moniker.  This seems to be strictly about the old catalogue and who controls it.

[Mutherfunker]

This thread is full of bullshit. The amount of conjecture and assumptions about the GN'R name, re-recording songs, etc  

Thank you to Booker for talking some common sense.

If you want to understand this case read his post above. That's all there is to it.

@#$%Muther

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

this is really sad when music gets down to such "materialistic" matters.
we know that it works like that for everyband, but we don't see it, now that we're facing these documents, it really kills the dream and the "rock star", "rock n roll band " image , the " we are friends and we just play music together".

i still think that slash and duff are right , i mean, it's clear that axl (even without these docs) TRIED his best to kill the "old" guns n roses and make it disapear you know ..... he actually wanted the people to forget about that and focus on his new band ... well it's understandable  ....

i guess this forum is gonna live for some 2 or 3 more years ..... waiting for something ....
 

[pilferk]

Booker's post is pretty much on the money.  I do want to hopefully clear up a potential point of confusion:

Licensing fees are royalties, but not all royalties are licensing fees, if that makes sense.  When conny used the term, I think she was thinking more in terms of "per song" royalties...meaning the money paid out "per song" to the songwriter and the performers of the song, on any published "incarnation" of that song.  THOSE royalties would not be effected...other than the fact that there might be MORE of them, if the material was more widely used.  Booker used the term more widely, I think, to mean ALL the royalties generated by the band/partnership.  They were both right, sorta.

Now, my comments on the mess.
First off, IF S/D are able to "prove" their claims to a judge, it could mean bad things for Axl. IF S/D have all the corroborating proof/paperwork/evidence and Axl has no counterclaim/compelling evidence of his own, then S/D will win a pretty big battle.  But those are pretty big IF's, IMHO.

Having the brief to peruse is a nice piece of the puzzle.  However, without the original Delcaration of Partnership, nor the entire text of Axl's actual letter, nor the original Purchase Agreement for the "name" GnR, it's pretty tough to speculate on any sort of outcome.  I'd also like to see the "wording" in the letters of resignation from GnR written by Slash and Duff....because it's going to be pretty hard to determine intent if their letters of resignation say "I resign as a member of Guns n Roses" without specifying if they are referring to the creative entity or the business entity.  You could argue both sides, and I see VERY valid points on both of them.  The puzzle is FAR from complete, at this point.

All we have right now are claims..not facts.  It remains to be seen if the claims are deemed to be true by the court(s).

Oh, and someone mentioned settlement.  I think there are really only 2 plausible scenarios with this case.  Either the 3 parties DO settle, reforming a sort of "GNR Trust" Partnership to control all the old material, or it goes to trial.  I dont' think this one is going to be settled by throwing money at it....

I also have some questions that are worth pondering, but really can't be answered concretely without, I think, some of the original paperwork I mention above:

1)  Even if S/D garnered the rights to the back catalog, I have to think copyright law would still hold sway...meaning the songwriter of record would still have say over publication.  Now, most of the Appetite stuff has, simply, Guns n Roses (which, I assume, S/D would argue, specifically MEANS GnR, the business entity) listed as the songwriter, so all that would be fair game for licensing and republication.  But, the UYI stuff is pretty specific about songwriter.  Anything Axl is listed on would, I'm pretty sure, still need to be "cleared" with him for publication (at least), if not licensing.

2) IF (and it's a pretty big IF) it is deemed that S/D "resigned" from GnR the business entity when they resigned from GnR the creative entity, where then, would the rights revert to?  Since, if they ALL resigned, the partnership would disolve...that would create a quagmire of a mess...

3) Could ANY material be published if someone else owns the band's "name".? It's a trademark.  Copyright law would indicate not, I would think.  So, if S/D own the back catalog of material, while they could license it, legally...not owning the legal trademark of the bands' name is going to make it REALLY tough to publish, I would think. ESPECIALLY considering the songwriting credits on most of the Appetite stuff.  

What a mess!

[Will]

This is not my first language so I might interpret this document the wrong way, but I would like to point out a few things.

No one is surprised that Slash and Duff don't know Axl's real name?

"Plaintiffs (ie Slash and Duff) are ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein (...) and sue those defendants by such fictitious names."

Unless I'm missing something, I find it weird that they don't know Axl's real name.

As I said, I might not understand this court document very well but when I read: "[Slash and Duff] also seek a judicial declaration and injunction confirming that Slash and Duff - and only Slash and Duff - own and control all partnership assets."
Ok now, by "assets" do they mean everything GN'R did/filmed/recorded from 1985 to 1995? So they want to own and control (them and only them) the whole GN'R's back catalog? Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically they want to sue Axl in order to be able to do (without him) what he did since 1995?

I don't understand something else. If Axl did indeed leave the partnership in 1995, Slash and Duff being the two only remaining members...why didn't they do something about Axl's decisions during the past 9 years? It's not like he put a knife on their throat saying: "YOU won't make me give away that song to that movie/ commercial/ TV show!"
They could have said: "Screw you, it's been xx years that you left the partnership, WE can decide whatever we wanna do, and you have nothing to say about this."

I guess everybody assumes they just discovered that they could actually do that -- otherwise it would be too weird to say nothing for almost ten years and then sue Axl saying "Wait a minute..."
I'm not convinced they have such a solid case...but that's hard to know without reading all the parts of the case, as others pointed out.

To me that's kinda weird that they say today: "Yeah he got the name, I guess he can do whatever he wants to do with it, but we want to own and control whatever the band did from 1985 to 1995."
I've read people saying: "Fair enough, they should have the right to say something about the use fo something they created." 100% true. But isn't that the case for Axl too? Correct me if I'm wrong, but out of Axl, Slash and Duff, no one can say they created 100% of GN'R's back catalog (they don't claim they created it, they (and only them) want total control over that catalog. I mean, Axl created that catalog with them right? So why should he be left out? From what I read in the document, it's basically to get back at him for being so mean to them since 1995. I don't think that's the right thing to do.

I'm not saying what Axl did to them (what they claim he did) is right either, but all that story doesn't seem right to me. There's something missing. Everything is speculation but I'm anxious to hear/ read Axl's answer to that document. That would be very interesting...

[madagas]

Will, they know his name! I already commented on this....does 1-40 refers to future potential defendants unknown at this time. It allows S/d to add people to the suit if discovery reveals new people at fault-Geffen records (big maybe), Axl's management/accountants, etc.

[Cristina]

Thanks for explaining a little more, pilferk...

I was wondering, what exactly is the importance of "intent" and "understanding" in the alleged letter from Axl and how the contracts have been interpreted so far. Does the law in California consider that?

I am pretty sure Axl would never sign away his rights on the GN'R partnership "knowingly"... And Slash and Duff would have had more say in what goes on, if they interpreted the contracts in the way they present now, no?

And up to now, did Duff and Slash have no say in how the songs were used (in movies and such) - it wasn't Axl's decision alone, was it?

Another question, wasn't there already legal dispute about GNR name or rights in recent years? (post Slash departure) I think I saw that someplace, but I'm not sure...

on an off topic note - today I head sweet child o'mine used in a Sky News tv ad...

[madagas]

Pilferk, come on! There are infinite possibilities for settlement...alot of money is at stake and by taking this to trial, all parties stand to lose significantly. They will hedge their bets-guaranteed.

[pilferk]

Pilferk, come on! There are infinite possibilities for settlement...alot of money is at stake and by taking this to trial, all parties stand to lose significantly. They will hedge their bets-guaranteed.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I don't see money being the mitigating factor if there IS a settlement.  Now, money might exchange hands as PART of the settlement,  if it were to occur...  I think the 2 scenarios I listed as being the most likely, but I'm rampantly speculating, obviously.  Either the 3 parties come together to control the assets and play nice nice, or the courts are going to decide for them.....of course, supposing Axl doesn't have a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) that blows their claims all to hell.  I just don't see middle ground on this.  The assets are too valuable and, barring something compelling from Axl, S/D are going to be loathe to give up control of those assets if they are entitled to it in some way..no matter what amount of cash gets flashed at them.  Quite frankly, I think they SHOULD have say...but so should Axl.  However, as we all know, "should" and "right" aren't necessarily "legal".

[madagas]

Agree....the speculation is endless.

[Will]

Will, they know his name! I already commented on this....does 1-40 refers to future potential defendants unknown at this time. It allows S/d to add people to the suit if discovery reveals new people at fault-Geffen records (big maybe), Axl's management/accountants, etc.

Thanx for clearing that up.
To me something still doesn't sound right though, in that case...

[insupportofaxl]

Pilferk, come on! There are infinite possibilities for settlement...alot of money is at stake and by taking this to trial, all parties stand to lose significantly. They will hedge their bets-guaranteed.

I'm not saying it's not possible, just that I don't see money being the mitigating factor if there IS a settlement.  Now, money might exchange hands as PART of the settlement,  if it were to occur...  I think the 2 scenarios I listed as being the most likely, but I'm rampantly speculating, obviously.  Either the 3 parties come together to control the assets and play nice nice, or the courts are going to decide for them.....of course, supposing Axl doesn't have a "smoking gun" (no pun intended) that blows their claims all to hell.  I just don't see middle ground on this.  The assets are too valuable and, barring something compelling from Axl, S/D are going to be loathe to give up control of those assets if they are entitled to it in some way..no matter what amount of cash gets flashed at them.  Quite frankly, I think they SHOULD have say...but so should Axl.  However, as we all know, "should" and "right" aren't necessarily "legal".

Pilferk, thanks for your statments.  As usual, you reply with concise and clear objective posts and I appreciate your comments.

Second, I don't see Axl Rose signing anything away that would NOT protect HIM in every angle.  If anyone one here thinks that Axl would be that dumb, then you have issues.

Say he infact did sign away partnership rights.  I am sure there is a CLAUSE in there that protects his decisions.

Whoever on here posted that we need to hear Axl's rebuttal before making any assumptions is correct.  

I don't think you people give Axl credit.  You mean to tell me if you were in Axl's shoes, you would have signed away something and went for 9 years thinking "oh, my ex members will never know that I screwed them".  Come on....Axl protects EVERY thing he does.

I don't see Slash and Duff having a leg to stand on here.  

The timing of this case is too ironic and surely that will play in the decision of any judge.

And whoever said Axl will countersue......damn fucking straight.

This will NOT break Axl at all.  He's probably laughing as we type.

[Where is Hassan Nasrallah ?]

Second, I don't see Axl Rose signing anything away that would NOT protect HIM in every angle.  If anyone one here thinks that Axl would be that dumb, then you have issues.
I don't see Slash and Duff having a leg to stand on here.  

come on, this is not a simple fight in a band, these are official papers,  i dont think slash and duff can play and make up fake documents and all.
if they printed out these stuff, that means they have the proofs.
it is too serious to make up lies.

anyway, all the stories of axl trying to stop the songs to be on movies are sad, specially the one of him trying to re-record for black hawk down, sick.
 

[bolton]

i think that slash and duff are scared,because gh have great selling,and new incarnation of gnr will have a better selling than gh,and that will be great axl success.they are SCARED