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

[Naupis]

Just Slash and Duff......the stakes are awful high. I am very intersted to see what Axl's counter-claim is going to be. And I am going to believe his lawyers aren't shrugging this off because we got a Big No comment from the management team, and if they thought this was a frivilous attempt at PR and other whatnot, they would have let everyone know so.

[badapple81]

Thanks

And does this have any implications for Axl's use of the GNR name at all?

[Naupis]

Nope......Axl owns the name from now until the end of time and there is no contesting it. He can do whatever he wants with it.

[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.

Where are you getting this?  I admit that I didn't download the document, but has VR ever expressed interest in re-recording the old GNR songs, or are you just making it up?

I figured that would just be common sense. If they do get what they want with this lawsuit, and have full control over the Old GN'R songs without any say from Axl, why wouldn't you take advantage of that situation to gain a higher percentage for movies/advertisements and get the Velvet Revolver name out there associated with GN'R songs? Axl DID attempt to do the same thing, but was blocked. There is no point to this lawsuit if they do not get anything from it. I doubt they are suing simply for the money; they want the decision power on the old songs, and that is obviously so they can USE it.

[Naupis]

They will not re-record any songs. They will just license the old ones out to movies.....Axl will still make his money and so will they. The only difference between them having control in the future and not having it now is they can ue the songs more often than Axl was so they can make more money even if he is making money to. Also, Wieland would never agree to re-record those songs. That will not happen. Those guys don't get along, but Slash and Duff have been adament about Axl not re-recording those songs because it destroys the integrity of the old material. They won't turn right around and do the same thing.

[madagas]

Most of you guys have no idea what the fuck you are talking about! Naupis, without the fucking agreement made in September 1992, "exhibit A", YOU CAN'T DETERMINE ANYTHING FROM THIS COMPLAINT OTHER THAN SLASH'S AND DUFF'S INTERPRETATION OF THAT DOCUMENT. We also don't have exhibit B, Axl's notice of intent to terminate. I have read hundreds of complaints filed against the company I work for, a fortune 500 company-actually featured on the most recent Forbes magazine cover, and read contracts daily, ones much more conviluted than this situation. Every plaintiff makes every allegation possible while filing a complaint. People ask for millions and millions of dollars and sometimes, the majority of the time, end up settling for close to nothing-as could be the case here-we don't know. Again, no Answer from Axl yet, so we don't have any idea what will happen. You guys are assuming WAY too much. It is comical reading these posts. ps I don't give a shit if you are a paralegal, going to law school or whatever, I read this stuff daily-in a real business environment-which is what this is, BUSINESS. This is very interesting, but please quit acting like you know whose fault it is and how this will come out-Naupis, because you don't.

[Booker Floyd]

I figured that would just be common sense. If they do get what they want with this lawsuit, and have full control over the Old GN'R songs without any say from Axl, why wouldn't you take advantage of that situation to gain a higher percentage for movies/advertisements and get the Velvet Revolver name out there associated with GN'R songs?

How is that common sense?  

They wouldnt do it because that doesnt seem to their interest.  Theres been absolutely no implication that any of the ex-members want to re-record any GNR songs, ever.  And I dont know where all of this commercial business is coming from...the article mentioned movies.  Maybe somebody correct me?  If not, then its nothing more than unfounded jumping to conclusions.

Axl DID attempt to do the same thing, but was blocked. There is no point to this lawsuit if they do not get anything from it.

Its pretty clear that what theyre getting is the right to manage their music as they see fit - they doesnt mean theyre going to re-record songs and license them to commercials.  There is no implication of that.  And theyre also seeking punitive damages for potential profit loss.  Thats what theyre getting from the suit.

I doubt they are suing simply for the money; they want the decision power on the old songs, and that is obviously so they can USE it.

Not necessarily.  Yes, its likely that they will license the music (however, there nothing to imply its use in commercials, only movies as far I can see), but "USING" it not re-recording it for commercials, or anything for that matter.  Your "common sense" isnt common sense at all.  Its ridiculous.

[justynius]

I think alot of this has to do with the Greatest Hits album.

That's a VERY interesting thought. With all of this Axl vs Slash talk going on, wouldn't it be ironic if they were in on this together to help out the GH lawsuit.

The GH album killed any chance of Axl re-recording the old songs. If Slash's side wins the lawsuit, Axl still receives compensation wherever the old songs are used. I've also never seen Slash complaining about GN'R not being allowed to be on the soundtracks for crappy movies, while he has been openly critical about other things. Axl doesn't have a whole lot to lose without decision control (GH was probably a worst case scenario), and Slash doesn't have a whole lot to gain.

However, if this lawsuit IS successful, the one thing it does do is all but insure that Geffen did not have a leg to stand on in regards to the GH album. If you recall, things are not looking too good for the Axl/Slash/Duff camp in that lawsuit.

It's a LONG stretch, but I could definitely see something like "Sue me for the $1 million I've made off of the GH album, I will put up a weak defense, and the court ruling will all but insure we win the GH lawsuit."

[Continental Drift]

I just want to throw one other thing into the mix...

I'm not dead certain about these dates, but I think they are more or less correct. Slash "left Guns N' Roses in November 1996". Duff "left Guns N' Roses in the spring of 1998". Axl Rose allegedly "left the original Guns N' Roses Partnership" and in effect started a new Guns N' Roses in December 1995. So, would I be correct in assuming that in effect from 12/30/95 to 11/96 Slash was a "contracted" employee of Axl's new Guns N' Roses and likewise for Duff from 12/30/95 to the Spring of '98?

I only bring this up to argue that perhaps at least two other contracts (Slash and Duff's contracts with Axl's new GN'R) may be out there. It is not entirely impossible that some re-negotiation of the terms of the "Original GN'R Partnership" also occured at this time that could have resulted in some sort of restoration of Axl's discretionary rights with respect to the back catalog. In effect, on 12/31/95, if Slash and Duff wanted to continue on as a "member of Guns N' Roses", which they most certainly would have given the fact that though dormant, GN'R was still one of the 4-5 top grossing acts in the world with nothing but mountains of platinum records, record breaking tours etc, the only way for them to do it was to sign on with Axl's new Guns N' Roses. In other words, Axl would have held all the cards (and still does) in terms of continuing on as Guns N' Roses. Is it not possible that Axl and his expert legal team put some language in Slash and Duff's contracts (if they exist) with the new Guns N' Roses restoring Axl's rights (even partially) from the original partnership?

Again, I don't have an f'n clue. I merely raise this to say that the universe of documents in this case is likely to be much LARGER than just the exhibits attached to the Slash/Duff complaint. It is impossible to judge how valid any of the Slash/Duff claims are until we get an answer with exhibits from Rose's attorneys.

[madagas]

See what I mean! Just, the Geffen lawsuit has been dismissed, dropped by the plaintiffs (Axl-Slash). They obviously did have a leg to stand on...quit speculating scenarios and deal in facts.

[Naupis]

Madagas, never claimed to know everything. Just giving a blow by blow of what we have so far and Hypothesizing potential outcomes based on what we know. Thats all, and attempting to clear up discrepancies when at all possible. I frankly can't wait to see Axl's counterclaim if its made available. Do you think we'll get a chance to see it when its filed, as I woudl assume it will be done in the near future as the suit was filed on Apr 28, and I think they have 30 days to respond.

[justynius]

How is that common sense? They wouldnt do it because that doesnt seem to their interest.  Theres been absolutely no implication that any of the ex-members want to re-record any GNR songs, ever.  And I dont know where all of this commercial business is coming from...the article mentioned movies.  Maybe somebody correct me?  If not, then its nothing more than unfounded jumping to conclusions.

As far as I can tell there are only three possible reasons why Slash/Duff might have behind this lawsuit...

1) To "get back" at Axl
2) To use the decision power to their advantage for Velvet Revolver
3) To make money

In all three scenarios, the most beneficial avenue would be to re-record the songs with Velvet Revolver and license the re-recordings out. This (1) definitely gets back at Axl by doing exactly what he was going to do to them, (2) obviously benefits Velvet Revolver as a source of $ and publicity, (3) earns them more money by cutting Axl out of performance benefits. Keep in mind, I think they're entirely justified in doing this IF they win the suit.

Also, before you attack someone as "jumping to conclusions," maybe it would be a good idea to go through the available information so you know what you're talking about first. "Commercials" is DIRECTLY from the lawsuit...

(page 9)
"Axl has unlawfully interfered with the issuance of synchronization licenses for use of Original GNR performances which were and are requested for various films, commercials, television programs and other projects.

[Falcon]

Its pretty clear that what theyre getting is the right to manage their music as they see fit -

That's exactly the situation.

What the fuck is the problem with seeking a say in how music they helped create is used (or not used)?


That said..

I do find the timing of the whole ordeal a little goofy, to say there's not some ulterior motive is shortsighted at best...

[madagas]

Naupis, I hear you-and Mao too. I just don't like people's bias coming out while trying to be objective and analytical. Axl is in quite a shit storm this time. But, ultimately, I think Slash and Duff are trying to shake him up a little and don't intend to impose "punitive" damages on him. They are not that type. I think they want a fair even shake in the decisions made on their back catalog. The rest is just playing the "game" that lawyers play. It is called negotiation.

[noizzynofuture]

Thanks for the info MAO and naupis.

I do however think that we are looking at only one side of this debate and if history had told us anything it's that axl is a complete control freak and so i don't think there's anyway that the documents we've seen are the whole picture.

Can you imagine axl making a decision like giving up his right to be a part of the "partnership" and his right to have a say in how the music is licensed ?

I find this extremely hard to believe considering how zealous axl is about contracts and litigation.  

Axl strikes me as the type of person who has 10 different accountants review his taxes to make sure there's no mistakes and he's getting every last penny  

This lawsuit could drag on forever based on whatever discoveries we're not currently seeing.

[Jizzo]

You really think Velvet Revolver wants to be a GNR cover Band?

[rocky]

Nobody is going to re-record anything.  Axl still owns part of the copyright and song-writing credits for the old songs and even if slash n' duff's gnr partnership decides to re-record a song, they'd have to get axl's permission as a song writer and pay him song writing royalties.  In the same way Axl could never re-release a new AFD as has been rumored for years.  Both groups would be essentially "covering" another artists song, which if fine, but you must have that artists permission to release it and make money off it.

[kockstar99]

. 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....  

[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.

[badapple81]

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