Axl's permission to release VR show?

[GypsySoul]

Source:  HTGTH News Section on the main site page.  
http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=1044

According to a posting on VELVET REVOLVER's official web site, last night's "secret" show at The Roxy on Sunset Blvd. in Hollywood was being recorded for possible future release. The concert, the plans for which were exclusively revealed on BLABBERMOUTH.NET last month, was staged for "a few lucky contest winners" and was the first show to feature a full set of songs from the group's debut album, "Contraband", due out June 8 on RCA Records. In addition, the contest winners were to receive a collector's t-shirt printed just for last night's concert.

With all the bullshit going on about the Slash & Duff lawsuit against Axl for not getting their permission for accepting/declining offers to release GNR copyrighted songs, does this mean that since there are three (3) GNR songs in that show that Axl has to sign-off on any deal to release that material commercially?  

[kockstar99]

Thats a good question...I would guess that they would need his permission to release anything that he is a co writer for....

Axl can relase any Guns n Roses material as he feels since he is still "Guns n Roses"

But for VR to cover a Guns n Roses song and recieve money for it i would guess yes they need Axls Permission


Im not sure im just guessing tho...

[madagas]

Well, think about it, Izzy wrote Brownstone and Used to Love Her. Did Axl write It's So Easy? I don't think he has writing credits on any of those songs. That could be by design...

[kockstar99]

Well, think about it, Izzy wrote Brownstone and Used to Love Her. Did Axl write It's So Easy? I don't think he has writing credits on any of those songs. That could be by design...

From Memory i know that West Arkeen is a cowriter for Its So Easy....

I think the AFD had all the music written by Guns n Roses... It didnt name names.... That could work in Axls favor but i dont really know..

Its a damn good question this topic.....

[tomass74]

I was already thinking that part of thiswhole lawsuit was so they can release these tunes.  It would be shitty if they  couldn't release the GnR tunes on the live shows.  They just want to regain some of the rights to the music. I kno wthat when I get some of these live shows that I want to hear Slash and Duff jamming out the GnR classics...

[ClintroN]

Since AFD is credited as Guns n' Roses and UYI 1 n' 2  is by name, Axl can play any song on AFD as he pleases.
Right?
Maybe thats why the 02' setlist is so short of UYI songs, Axl might have trouble using most songs...although they did play YCBM, and thats an Izzy n' Axl song...

who knows

But im sure Slash n' Duff would'nt have a problem with playing songs that have their name on it

[Skeba]

As far as I know you can play live whatever you please. The problems start when you release something on some media...

[madagas]

I believe when they formed the partnership in 1992 or when the Adler litigation came up, that Slash and Axl went back and specifically divided up percentages and specific credits for AFD and Lies. Axl said in Adler's litigation that his percentage of the writing credits came out to 42% of the entire catalog. Anyhow, I think there are specefic credits for those songs. It is not ironic that Axl is not credited for the three songs played. If he was, they would have to pay him something if a live cd is released. They may anyway depending on the results of their litigation. The two things are connected in my opinion.

[Izzy]

Wha?

This will be EXACTLY the same as if they covered a song on their album

The respective song writers get a percentage of the profits

Just because its on DVD doesn't change anything - it will work the same as the royalties they will pay the owner of Nirvana's catelogue for 'Negative creep'

[starchild_666]

I think VR have no right to release any of GNR material, and that sucks because I think Slash, Duff and Matt should have more rights to GNR material that Axl!
If talking about AFD... I think Slash, Duff, Izzy and Adler did much more writing than Axl did and they should have all the rights  

[Dave_Rose]

Thats quite interesting Axl got VR right where he wants them if thats the case with this law suit

[Top-Hatted One]

big deal! they will just remove the gnr songs or they will not release the shows. Doesn't mean the band isn't going to survive because of it!

[Doc Emmett Brown]

Thats quite interesting Axl got VR right where he wants them if thats the case with this law suit

That makes zero sense...  VR is going to release a new album!  the cover songs are just for fun.  If this is where Axl wants VR to be (i.e. release a new fucking album), then maybe Axl should think about putting his own ass there!  

Posted by: Izzy  Posted on: Today at 02:03:55pm  
This will be EXACTLY the same as if they covered a song on their album

The respective song writers get a percentage of the profits

Just because its on DVD doesn't change anything - it will work the same as the royalties they will pay the owner of Nirvana's catelogue for 'Negative creep'  

I was this impression as well.  All you have to do is make sure the royalties get paid.  I would think that playing (and releasing) a cover song is a different legal matter from licensing a song to a movie.  

[F*ck Fear]

I always thought that a band can play whatever the fuck they want live as long it does not get released for sale(cd/dvd,etc)

[starchild_666]

I always thought that a band can play whatever the fuck they want live as long it does not get released for sale(cd/dvd,etc)

and you thought right   I think problems start apperaing when you want to release that show

[WalrusOct9]

I don't think Axl has any grounds to stop the release of Gn'R covers by VR.  So long as songwriting royalties are paid out accordingly, they can do whatever they want.  I could be wrong, but I don't think there's a problem.  

Sammy Hagar has released two live DVD's and one live CD with Van Halen tunes performed by his solo band, and didn't have any problems.  And believe me, I'm sure Eddie wasn't happy about it, but there wasn't anything he could do about it (except collect his royalties check).  I don't see how VR will be any different.  

[Thorned Rose]

Check 1...

Axl Rose owns the rights to the Guns N' Roses name. That means any material released not by him or with his consent is illegal.

DVDs, CDs, ect.

So Velvet Revolver will need to get Axl Rose's approval or some corperate approval before VR puts out that DVD otherwise it is one hell of a lawsuit. I know.

They may just cut out the Gn'R songs. Who knows? But those are the facts whether you like them or not.

[Ignatius]

My two cents,

I may be totally off-clue but, I read somewhere ( it might have been here) that if you release any material with a cover song on it,  you pay 8% off the royalties fee the to the band you've covered. So, if Velvet Revolver would release the Roxy DVD, I guess they would have to pay 24% off the royalties fee to Axl Rose ( I'm assuming that  since he owns the GNR name, he would be entitled to receive royalities for the  three songs) Pretty Ironic, uh?

[tomass74]

I think you also need to get the bands permission as well as giving them a cut. That's why they didn't put some of the intros like "Bad Time" "Mother"  and "Only Women Bleed" on Live Era becaus ethey said they didnt want to deal with all that.  Anyway, I want to have the GnR tunes on the Live VR cd's.....

[WalrusOct9]

Axl owns the rights to the Gn'R name.  That doesn't mean he has exclusive rights to the songs.  The name and the songs are two different properties.  

It's not like they got his approval to release the Greatest Hits disc.

Axl might be able to block use of the original recordings of the songs, but he can't stop bands from releasing cover versions.  So long as royalties are paid appropriately, VR can do as it pleases.   I really don't think they'll have any problem releasing the Gn'R tunes on a DVD.