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

[jarmo]

The document says Axl left the GN'R Partnership in 95, but he owns the GN'R name.

So he owns the name of the partnership that he left?



/jarmo

[Naupis]

That about sums it up. What they are alleging is that he owns the name but that he is not privy to make decisions anymore on the back catalog and other licensing issues because he pulled out of the Partnership which is responsible for those decisions.

It sounds kind of messed up, but it would explain why they allege that even though he owns the name, he forfeits all rights and Veto power over those decisions since he pulled out of their partnership.

[Timothy]

If what Slash and Duff are saying is true than good for them, but my only question is why did they take this action sooner like say back during the Black Hawk Down situation?

[Naupis]

They're not the sharpest tools in the shed and I am not sure they even knew. I suspect when they had their lawyers look into the contracts about filing an injunction to stop the GH release that one of them saw this and brought it to their attention, and then they were like, "Oh really, well lets see what we can do about it." I would be willing to bet any amount of money this is how the whole thing went down.  

[Timothy]

So they just forgot that they owned the rights to the GN?R  back catalog, Damn they must be really stupid to forget something like that.  

[Naupis]

NO, I am not sure they realized that by Axl pulling out of the partnership, they were now the only two responsible for making those decisions if he indeed left the partnership as their lawyers say he did. They probably figured that because he owned the name he was entitled to continue doing so but legally that may not be the case.

[Timothy]

Now that could be , but don?t you think that if they want to use a song on a movie under the GN?R name that they will still have to get Axl?s okay.

[the dirt]

That about sums it up. What they are alleging is that he owns the name but that he is not privy to make decisions anymore on the back catalog and other licensing issues because he pulled out of the Partnership which is responsible for those decisions.

It sounds kind of messed up, but it would explain why they allege that even though he owns the name, he forfeits all rights and Veto power over those decisions since he pulled out of their partnership.

Many often bring up the fact that slash, duff, and izzy left GNR willingly.
This whole thing shows how Axl left them. He left their partnership and ran off with the name.

[Naupis]

Tim,

That is a very legitimate point, I am not quite sure the answer. I just know that if it is ruled the Partnership owns that GNR stuff, that they will be allowed to license it in any which way they want as they would be the decision making body of such decisions. It is murky situations like this that happen when people all get power hungry and want to habitually screw the other one over.

[Timothy]

I think that the judge proceeding over this is going to have a hard time starting this mess out . But I will say that this is one damn interesting situation .

[Booker Floyd]

more likely they want to be able to undisputedly re-record the Old GN'R songs with Velvet Revolver and only use the re-recordings in movie deals. Thus, cutting Axl's performance benefits and bringing minor publicity to Velvet Revolver (though I'm guessing most people have already heard all of GN'R's hits, and would associate the songs with a noticeable different singer as "covers").

Exactly how are you jumping to this conclusion?  What evidence is there to even suggest this might be a possibility, let alone a probability?

[madagas]

He is talking out of his ass.

[Continental Drift]

Thanks for the kind words justinyus.

I don't have much to add that hasn't already been said by the very capable board members (Axl and Slash/Duff supporters alike) on this board. It's been said, but bare's repeating, this is only one side of the story and I'm positive Axl's attorneys are readying a very detailed response.

I will say that I always have felt that this issue would ultimately have to come back to Axl's purchase of the name "Guns N' Roses"- not so much that that in itself would be decisive with respect to control of licensing the catalog, but whether there were other specific rights and controls that Axl and his attorneys expected to come along with that purchase and whether they were enumerated in the paperwork re: said purchase of name. There's your case right there. Axl has clearly operated since 12/30/95 under the assumption that his purchase of the GN'R name did entail more than just the name itself. Think about it, would he deliberately excercise his supposed veto powers and market himself as the sole proprietor of GN'R music licenses if he knew that he legally didn't have that power anymore and would be basically inviting million dollar law suits from the "old GNR partnership"? As much as he may hate Slash and Duff at any given moment... I think he's smarter than that. Certainly his attorneys are. There's clearly a disagreement about what EXACTLY Axl purchased when he bought the name "Guns N' Roses". I think the paperwork on that purchase will decide this case if it indeed goes the distance without outside settlement.

Anyway, the Slash/Duff Complaint makes it very cut and dry that Axl purchased the name but forefeited control of the back catalog becoming nothing more than a "Terminated Partner" (Somehow images of the end of YCBM video keep going through my head. ). If that is indeed true. Then Axl is going to have a hard time with this case. But even if he loses (apart from the damages)- it seems he still stands to gain from "Terminated Partner" status over time- especially if Slash and Duff exercise their newly won discretionary powers and license out old GN'R material (tracks, videos, etc.) like animals. I think people predicting that a loss in this case (which I personally do not foresee) will permanently ruin Axl Rose are way overreacting. I don't see it. In fact, he probably would even gain over time.

Anyway, it's damn sad it had to come to this. I remember them from the SCOM video as a gang that would literally kill for each other. 17 short years later... we have this. Ain't greed a bitch.

[Voodoochild]

If Slash and Duff win, maybe we could see some old GNR stuff that they thought was good enough to release, like that video stuff in UYI tour. I'm really cool with that and would be very happy. I don't see Axl being fucked up if he lost this case, I guess it would force him to release anything new with the GNR name...
It's indeed a shame that a great band has turned down in this shit legal issues...  

[providman]

more likely they want to be able to undisputedly re-record the Old GN'R songs with Velvet Revolver and only use the re-recordings in movie deals. Thus, cutting Axl's performance benefits and bringing minor publicity to Velvet Revolver (though I'm guessing most people have already heard all of GN'R's hits, and would associate the songs with a noticeable different singer as "covers").

Exactly how are you jumping to this conclusion?  What evidence is there to even suggest this might be a possibility, let alone a probability?

You know where he came up with that, Booker. His hero Axl did exactly that with Big Daddy & tried to do that with Black Hawk Down. So in his mind if Axl did it, then everyone else must want to do it, too.

[Naupis]

Axl would not be screwed in a monetary sense and in fact he may gainly financially if Slash and Duff started releasing stuff.

He would be screwed in the sense that he is very emotionally fragile and this would just set him over the edge. In his mind he is/was/always will be GNR, and to lose any aspect of control over his baby would send him into a tail spin and anyone who tries to play it off as otherwise is being naive given the mental instability he has shown throughout the course of his life and in particular recently.

[Continental Drift]

Sorry Naupis. I only meant he wouldn't be ruined financially. After being a GN'R and Axl fan for 16 years now... I have learned that there is absolutely NO accounting for Axl's mental state. He could blow Slash and Duff out of the water on this one, get awarded $50 million in punitive damages and have Slash and Duff thrown in the can for 15-20 years and still slip into a deep dark depression. That's where we are with Axl unfortunately.

[Booker Floyd]

The document says Axl left the GN'R Partnership in 95, but he owns the GN'R name.

So he owns the name of the partnership that he left?

Exactly...

It seems, from the documents shown, that Axl forfeited his role in the "Original GNR" partnership (the one that has responsibility for licensing issues, etc.) in exchange for ownership of the name "Guns N' Roses," so that he can operate under the name by himself/with other musicians.

So ownership of the name "GNR" is not equivalent to ownership/management of the Original GNR catalogue.

This is definitely an ugly, bitter end to the band, but truthfully, its been ugly and bitter for years.  Were just now seeing it firsthand through this lawsuit...very unfortunate.  I hope this is over soon and it doesnt effect anybodys projects.

[blues_rock_axeman]

I very much doubt it will, but could this knee-jerk the release of CD?

To add to that, Slash has been quoted as saying he'd avoid playing songs that were 'too Guns' (eg Welcome to the Jungle, SCOM) in solo outings...so a VR Nov Rain is unlikely.

[Falcon]

I hope this is over soon and it doesnt effect anybodys projects.

Unfortunately, this has the looks of litigation that could go on and
on.

I don't see it affecting anything Slash, Duff/VR related, Axl's project on the other hand....