Slash, Duff Sue Axl Over Guns N' Roses Publishing Royalties

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Here is something to ponder. What if Axl has proof that Slash and Duff are no in the partnership thus that is why he did this. We have still yet to see Axls hand.? For all we know Axl has a royal flush and Slash and Duff are not due royalities. Just imagine if Axl had that and counter sued Duff and Slash for money they owe him.

[anythinggoes]

ok so whats the difference between writing royalties and publishing royalties ?

[killingvector]

ok so whats the difference between writing royalties and publishing royalties 

Eva is the expert on that issue. She has written a beautiful post on the differences.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

ok so whats the difference between writing royalties and publishing royalties ?

I think writing royalites is when you get money when other people use the song since you wrote it.
Publishing royalities is that you have the right to sell the song to make money off it.

[killingvector]

Kobalt is a very respected company, known for fast and efficient collection of royalties due the artists. I wonder if being behind 2 quarters in royalty distribution is common if the publishing arm is moved from one company to another.

Notice

http://www.kobaltmusic.com/clients.php


Kobalt's client list doesn't say GnR only Axl Rose........hmmmmmm

[DunkinDave]

As you can see Slash and Duff are suing under the gnr name. Now as we all know Axl owns the name, so why are try suing under it?

There are 3 GNR trademarks that are currently still alive, all acknowledging Slash, Duff and Axl are collectively entitled to anything GNR-related:

Trademark 1 - "Guns N' Roses" name, as used for selling merchandise containing name "Guns N' Roses"

Typed Drawing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark GUNS N'ROSES
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: clothing, namely, T-shirts, shirts, hats, caps, bandannas, sweatpants, and thermal shirts. FIRST USE: 19861200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19861200
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75088597
Filing Date April 15, 1996
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition November 12, 1996
Registration Number 2035815
Registration Date February 4, 1997
Owner (REGISTRANT) Guns N' Roses composed of W. Axl Rose, Michael McKagan and Saul Hudson, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 450 N. ROXBURY DRIVE, 8TH FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 902104222
Attorney of Record HARVEY S. HERTZ
Prior Registrations 1762599;1766309
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Trademark 2 - "Guns N' Roses" name, as used by a musical group in performance

Typed Drawing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark GUNS N' ROSES
Goods and Services IC 041. US 107. G & S: entertainment services; namely, performances by a musical group. FIRST USE: 19841200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841200
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74295264
Filing Date July 16, 1992
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 26, 1993
Registration Number 1766309
Registration Date April 20, 1993
Owner (REGISTRANT) GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 450 N. ROXBURY DRIVE, 8TH FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 902104222
Attorney of Record HARVEY S. HERTZ
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20030408.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20030408
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Trademark 3 - "Guns N' Roses" name, as used for selling pre-recorded albums and records

Typed Drawing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark GUNS N' ROSES
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 036. G & S: prerecorded video and audio tapes, prerecorded phonograph records and prerecorded compact discs all featuring music. FIRST USE: 19841200. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19841200
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 74295263
Filing Date July 16, 1992
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition January 12, 1993
Registration Number 1762599
Registration Date April 6, 1993
Owner (REGISTRANT) GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson p/k/a "Slash" and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP CALIFORNIA 450 N. ROXBURY DRIVE 8TH FLOOR BEVERLY HILLS CALIFORNIA 90210-422
Attorney of Record HARVEY S HERTZ
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR). SECTION 8(10-YR) 20030504.
Renewal 1ST RENEWAL 20030504
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

[killingvector]

What is the relationship between the trademark and the publication rights of GnR materials?  At least for this latest lawsuit, the power over the publication rights is being questioned. Axl is listed on all 3, the question is whether this is evidence that he didn't leave the partnership.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

Does 2003 05 04 under renewal means they ran out in 2003?

[killingvector]

I think it just means they renewed the trademark agreement.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

I think it just means they renewed the trademark agreement.

Well if that is true how can Duff and Slash claim Axl left the partnership in 96?

[Eva GnRAxlRosette]

the wording in the posted portion of the claim filed is EXTREMELY interesting.

Slash and Duff are representing themselves to be "Guns N' Roses"

This suit will no doubt force them to present evidence that they are "Guns N' Roses"
The first suit, which claims Axl left/quit "Guns N' Roses", ask for declarative relief -
They are petitioning the court to declare Slash and Duff as the only partners in Guns N' Roses. 
There doing so acknowledges that the current known status of "Guns N' Roses" does not recognize them as sole partners.
Yet they're basing this case on that unestablished premise which is yet to be ruled on.

This brings me back to my previous line of questioning.
Who was receiving the royalty check from ASCAP and distributing it before - through all these years?
Perhaps when the partnership was formed, and the ASCAP terms initiated, there was an agent agreed upon by the members of Guns N' Roses Partnership that would distribute the royalties to the partners. 
Perhaps it was the attorney who served Guns N' Roses at that time.  Who was that?

anyhow in the absence of Guns N' Roses partnership agreement, i been reading through the Uniform Partnrship Act.
I'll share some of it with you guts once I figure it out! 
here's a link to it: 
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:nL7ey-MGmCsJ:www.law.washington.edu/courses/kummert/A514_Su05/Documents/25.05.pdf+revised+uniform+partnership+act&hl=en&start=10

and this bar exam question and answer touches on some interesting points regarding dissolution of a partnership
question:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:QnrIh5z8PtMJ:www.alaskabar.org/BarExamResources/Feb2004BusinessLawQ6.pdf+quitting+a+partnership&hl=en&start=3

answer:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:FUt_3vl9l_YJ:www.alaskabar.org/BarExamResources/Feb2004BusinessLawGG.pdf+quitting+a+partnership&hl=en&start=2

[D]

Guys u all are trying to make this too difficult.


Listen, Duff and Slash received their checks all the way up till December 2004 but stopped receiving them once Axl sold the publishing to sanctuary.

1+1=2 guys, its very simple

either Axl is fucking them out of their money illegally or it was an oversight on Sanctuary's books.


Its that simple

Had Slash and Duff had no longer been in the partnership their checks wouldve stopped coming as soon as they signed the name away to Axl but they didnt stop therefore signaling that they are still entitled to royalties.

The royalties they are talking about are from catalogue sells of every GNR album

u get a check every quarter based on the record sales of albums in which u have songwriting credits.

so everytime time AFD,Lies,UYI 1 and 2,TSI,Live Era and now the Greatest Hits sells, they get percentages.

Any money received for a GNR song being on a soundtrack,used in a commercial or what have you, is split between the members *see orginal lawsuit*

Bottom line is Axl is trying to control GNR 100 percent and even though he owns the name and can use that name anyway he sees fit, the albums and catalogue of songs still belong to the orginal band


its this simple everyone, no need to make it more difficult than it already is.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

D no you are missing the point. Slash and Duff are suing Axl claming he is not in the partnership, yet it says in 2003 all three of them renewed the contracts thus Axl is still in the partnership, if Axl was not then it would have just said Duff and Slash.  No one knows why Slash and Duff did not get their checks, we will find out soon but the fact remains duff and slash want control of the  back catalog and claim axl has no say in it, when in fact all three still have a say in it.

[D]

You are contradicting yourself, u said they all three have a say in it so why is axl allowed to sell the publishing without their consent

Read the lawsuit one more time, this one is about the song publishing, it has nothing to do with the partnership

all the parntership does is say how the songs can be used, just like the Nirvana partnership that they have with Courtney Love, all members have to agree on how the songs are used  BUT


EVEN IF dUFF AND sLASH ARENT IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH aXL, THEY STILL KEEP THEIR PUBLISHING RIGHTS

THAT DOESNT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS.

This has nothing to do with the other lawsuit, I think Axl will win that one, but he doesnt have a prayer with this one.

[dave-gnfnr2k]

You are contradicting yourself, u said they all three have a say in it so why is axl allowed to sell the publishing without their consent

Read the lawsuit one more time, this one is about the song publishing, it has nothing to do with the partnership

all the parntership does is say how the songs can be used, just like the Nirvana partnership that they have with Courtney Love, all members have to agree on how the songs are used? BUT


EVEN IF dUFF AND sLASH ARENT IN A PARTNERSHIP WITH aXL, THEY STILL KEEP THEIR PUBLISHING RIGHTS

THAT DOESNT CHANGE REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENS.

This has nothing to do with the other lawsuit, I think Axl will win that one, but he doesnt have a prayer with this one.

Axl has the right to sell HIS SHARES of the publishing rights. That is what he probably thought he did. Look at that link that KV gave, it says they have the publishing rights to Axl Rose NOT guns n roses or Axl, slash and Duff.
There is a difference. Axl can sell his shares to whom ever he wants they are his.

There was probaly just some mix up when the checks were getting sent out.

Axl has a prayer with this one as long as Axl can prove it was a mix up and that is why he got the check for slash and duff too. Its really simple that it could have been a clarical error.  We will have to wait and see on this one.

[madagas]

Dave, trust me, you don't file suit in Federal Court over a clerical error. There is alot more to this than meets the eye. D, it is not a simple case either. Unless Axl has some form of personal insurance to cover these type of things, he is going to be paying an astronomical amount of attorney fees plus risking the loss of the lawsuit. A lot of money is at stake here. 

[mrsaxlrose]

There was probaly just some mix up when the checks were getting sent out.

Axl has a prayer with this one as long as Axl can prove it was a mix up and that is why he got the check for slash and duff too. Its really simple that it could have been a clarical error.? We will have to wait and see on this one.

This is not a "clerical error".  If that were the case, there would have been no need to file the lawsuit.  I'm pretty sure they did a thorough investigation before they proceeded with this lawsuit.

[Naupis]

I second whoever said this most likely has come from things found during "discovery" for the civil case in November. They most likely got their hands on information that otherwise wouldn't have seen.

Also, I question how air-tight any of Axl's counter-claims are in this case because if he had a pair of pocket ace's his legal team would have shown up at the last hearing to try and get the case thrown out. No lawyer prefers going to trial if they don't have to, and their absence at the last hearing leads one to believe they have resigned themselves to the fact they have a serious battle on their hands.

If things were 100% factually otherwise, we would have seen an attempt to have this thrown out already. If I remember correctly, S&D's legal team was making a big deal at one point about Axl's failure to produce certain documents during discovery, it could be entirely possible Axl has something to hide as typically you don't stonewall if you don't have a reason to.

Things are just getting interesting.

[killingvector]

Dave, trust me, you don't file suit in Federal Court over a clerical error. There is alot more to this than meets the eye. D, it is not a simple case either. Unless Axl has some form of personal insurance to cover these type of things, he is going to be paying an astronomical amount of attorney fees plus risking the loss of the lawsuit. A lot of money is at stake here. 

 S and D are suing Kobalt. Kobalt collects and distributes artist royalties. If there was a problem with the distribution, S and D would go after the distributor which is what they are doing. They are alleging that Axl turned over the collection process to Kobalt without their knowledge and tried to hide this fact. This was the first alleged fraud.

 S and D then claim that the monies that were go to S and D were given to Axl.  This is the second fraud.

 However, according to Kobalt, the publishing royalties of AXL ROSE were collected. It says nothing of Slash and Duff. It begs the question, is Kobalt collecting for Guns N Roses or just Axl.


I really wonder, as eva pointed out, where S and D were getting their checks before and why they believe that now Kobalt should give them their checks now. It could be possible that this is a huge misunderstanding between the parties

I agree that this is an extension of the first suit. I believe S and D filed this suit under the understanding that a win in the first case will almost assure victory in the second. Axl cannot sell what he doesn't legally own. If he hid details of the sale from his partners, that would constitute a fraud.

[michaelvincent]

Sad, ain't it? A group of guys come up from the streets together, change rock and roll forever, fade away on a Stones cover and spend the rest of their days suing each other.

Not very rock and roll at all.