W. Axl Rose & GNR "partnership" denied injunction in court (re: Hollywood Rose

[Nytunz]

Hmm. Does Myst. Know anything more about this? ??

[Jonx]

This whole legal stuff is confusing the hell out of me!

So the Guns n Roses Partnership is Slash and Duff and Axl is just Axl on his own.

I thought Axl purchased the name and left the Slash/Duff/Axl partnership, meaning that the partnership is now dissolved and no longer exists. Axl claims to have controll of all Guns material and the use of the name and this is the very issue that Slash and Duff were suing him over. There is now no need for a Guns n Roses Partnership as Axl has full controll of everything. Is the GNR Partnership mentioned in the article just Slash and Duff? If so what is the point if Axl owns all the rights, did they negotiate a new deal with Axl or something?

What the hell does all this mean, its way to confusing!!!!!!!!!

Hopefully someone understands what im trying to say.

Jonx

[AxlGunner]

i agree its confusing.

did anyone notice that one of the pieces of evidence that GNR and their lawyers used were 3 postings from gunnertemple.com from "Redhead". Also, there is mention of quotes from fans in a chatroom.

Proof that axl reads the internet??

Hi Axl!! (or, hi axl's lawyers!!!)

[PeterCoffin]

"The Roots of The Popular Rock Band on Geffen Records that Sold Millions of Albums and Sang The Hit Song 'Welcome To The Jungle'"

ahahahahahah

[justynius]

I thought Axl purchased the name and left the Slash/Duff/Axl partnership, meaning that the partnership is now dissolved and no longer exists. Axl claims to have controll of all Guns material and the use of the name and this is the very issue that Slash and Duff were suing him over. There is now no need for a Guns n Roses Partnership as Axl has full controll of everything. Is the GNR Partnership mentioned in the article just Slash and Duff? If so what is the point if Axl owns all the rights, did they negotiate a new deal with Axl or something?

I am friends with an ambitious PoliSci major at Columbia and sent them the lawsuit with a brief description of the situation. Their guess was that Axl's (lawyer's) primary defense would be that partial value in any usage of Old GN'R recordings would unavoidably involve usage of the "Guns N' Roses" name (which belongs to Axl), so he has full veto power over anything the old partnership wants to do. He expected this is a valid defense, but a problem could arise in that full veto power doesn't guarantee full approval power, and thus a court ruling could hinder Axl from re-releasing AFD without the permission of Slash/Duff (which seems to be the main issue here). Also, the outcome of the Greatest Hits lawsuit is significant because the commodities mostly under discussion are the *recordings* (owned by Geffen) and not the songs, so when it comes to commercials/soundtracks it is probably going to end up that Geffen is the sole owner of decision making power. One thing he did say was that if Axl's supposed "resignation document" referenced throughout the lawsuit doesn't exist (or cannot be produced on the trial date), it is pretty much an automatic win for GN'R and Slash/Duff probably don't get any compensation at all.

[sic.]

This is getting pretty interesting.

HGTGH History page:"October 30th, 1996 - Slash leaves GN'R! Axl sent a fax to MTV which said that Slash hadn't been a part of GN'R since 1995. Despite this there will be a new GN'R record."


Fair enough. Let's see that fax!

"[...] He (Slash) has been "OFFICIALLY and LEGALLY" outside of the Guns N' Roses Partnership since December 31, 1995."

Axl specifically says Slash is out of the partnership instead of the band. Duff's signature is in the fax as well and when compared to Slash, he was very much in the band at the moment, leaving almost a year later. What the lawsuit suggests is that Duff was as much out of the band in the beginning of the year 1996 as Slash, which contradicts the date of his 'official' resignation as well as the fax. It would definetly make more sense if Slash - upon leaving the band - would've also withdrawn from the GNR partnership and become a "terminated partner", the wording he and Duff use to describe Axl. That would've left Axl and Duff, the only original members, to handle all things GNR with Slash still being granted a certain amount of monetary gain for his one-time participation in the partnership.

The lawsuit turns it all upside down: By signing the fax, Duff seemed to agree with Axl on Slash being out of the partnership & the band, and also further underlined his own, continuing presence in both. The lawsuit fails to mention that Duff left the band in August '97, almost exactly two years after Axl's alledged withdrawal. Now, it would again make sense if Duff's resignation from the band would also relieve him from the partnership, leaving Axl as the only active member with partnership formally being disbanded. Thus, Axl would be the only one left to run the show - which seems to have got him sued.

So: Why would Axl go through the trouble of withdrawing from the partnership and form a "new band" with a remaining partnership member and then go public saying that Slash is out of the partnership with Duff agreeing to all this? A copy of the resignation document is said to be attached to the original lawsuit as 'exhibit B', so it seems to exist. Go figure.

If the fax and lawsuit would both be correct, that would mean the only surviving member in the partnership is Duff.

[Jonx]

Thanks for those last few posts, has cleared things up a bit. Still very interesting though!

Its hard to decided which side to take, im all for the Hollywood Rose recordings coming out so im against Axl on that. But i have to agree with Axl on the whole Guns material in movie soundtracks. There is nothing worse than having a song from your favourite band in crap movies. I believe Axl has stayed true to the Guns legacy and not thrown it out there to be exploited and put in crap products. But on the other hand im completly against Axl re releasesing Appetite For Destruction. That record should be left as it is, it doesnt need updating, its a classic! The new one needs to stay in Axls Vault locked away never to be revealed. Whatever happened to the guy who said 'i want to bury appetite'?

Since we are talking about Legal issues, if you read that Dizzy interview he seems to say that there is still a lot of legal issues about the 2002 tour to solve:

http://rockjournal.com/interviewdr.html

Dan: What actually happened with the Philadelphia gig?
Dizzy: I really can't talk about that.  There's still a lot of shit going on.

Dan: Legal stuff?
Dizzy: Yeah.

Dan: What about the cancellation of the tour?  Is that the same deal?
Dizzy: Its really the same thing.

So, reading between the lines thats another 2 cases. Add that to the 2 we already know about (3 if you want to include the dont cry one, but we wont!) That makes 4 cases against Axl that have to be resolved before the album gets released and those are only the ones we know about!

I suggest we start a Axl Legal cases tally, the current count is 4!!

Is there any other way of finding out if other cases exist, perhaps some of you with lawyer friends have connections and can find out, surely it is legally public knowledge. I know nothing about law by the way so correct me if im wrong, would just be nice to know what is going on.

Jonx

[Izzy]

Thanks for those last few posts, has cleared things up a bit. Still very interesting though!

Its hard to decided which side to take, im all for the Hollywood Rose recordings coming out so im against Axl on that. But i have to agree with Axl on the whole Guns material in movie soundtracks. There is nothing worse than having a song from your favourite band in crap movies. I believe Axl has stayed true to the Guns legacy and not thrown it out there to be exploited and put in crap products. But on the other hand im completly against Axl re releasesing Appetite For Destruction. That record should be left as it is, it doesnt need updating, its a classic! The new one needs to stay in Axls Vault locked away never to be revealed. Whatever happened to the guy who said 'i want to bury appetite'?

Since we are talking about Legal issues, if you read that Dizzy interview he seems to say that there is still a lot of legal issues about the 2002 tour to solve:

http://rockjournal.com/interviewdr.html

Dan: What actually happened with the Philadelphia gig?
Dizzy: I really can't talk about that.  There's still a lot of shit going on.

Dan: Legal stuff?
Dizzy: Yeah.

Dan: What about the cancellation of the tour?  Is that the same deal?
Dizzy: Its really the same thing.

So, reading between the lines thats another 2 cases. Add that to the 2 we already know about (3 if you want to include the dont cry one, but we wont!) That makes 4 cases against Axl that have to be resolved before the album gets released and those are only the ones we know about!

I suggest we start a Axl Legal cases tally, the current count is 4!!

Is there any other way of finding out if other cases exist, perhaps some of you with lawyer friends have connections and can find out, surely it is legally public knowledge. I know nothing about law by the way so correct me if im wrong, would just be nice to know what is going on.

Jonx

Putting 2 and 2 together - the reason we never got an explanation for the cancelled tour is because of these on going legal problems - making any kind of statement could compromise Axl's legal position

[sic.]

This is old news (dated 26th September, 2001), but I figured it might be interesting in the light of the GNR partnership lawsuit:

There might still be love thrown Axl's way, but that doesn't stop the whole mess of legalities that's still going on from the break-up of the band. Let's clear this up first for those kiddies who don't know: After the band disbanded in '93, '94 legal rights to the G N' R name "supposedly" shifted to Rose who's continued on with the band's name.

"That's actually a topic which we're trying to get to the bottom of," (Slash) states. "Originally, the other guys in the band gave it up. Now that I know a little bit more about this stuff, I'm trying to look for a loophole [to get some control back]."

So they might've been delving this matter long before the joint suit with Axl against GH. I pretty sure Slash was referring to the control over previously released GNR material rather than the band name.