Appetite For Democracy Blu-ray/DVD - live in Las Vegas Nov 21 2012

[Bodhi]

Aside from all that, there is nothing less punk rock than discussing contracts, rights of refusal etc.  When the business side becomes exposed to the public it really makes the art seem disingenuous no matter what the situation is.  

I know...it's like discussing Disney's business practices.  Nobody really wants the curtain pulled back to see that Mickey is really some 20 year old girl making $10 an hour, suffering with heat stroke on an almost daily basis, who's wearing a big rubber head.  And, the kicker is, I think Axl would largely agree with your POV on this.....

But...the reality is...bands are both artist and business, all at once.  And, at different times, both artistic and business influences come into play. I agree: It robs the process of some of the artistic "magic"....so you have to sort of learn to compartmentalize it all.

That being said: The business aspects have to be acknowledged because, otherwise, you're missing (at least) half the picture. 

Yeah I totally agree.  The business side is a huge part of it, always has been.  Now with the internet the fans know almost too much.  I try to steer away from most things involving the business side so I can just enjoy the art, but I was really looking forward to this blu ray so I got sucked into the thread here.

Your Disney comparison is spot on.  I frequent the parks and  have done all the tours, and when you see Princess Aurora walking around in a hoodie underneath the park it does kind of spoil it for a minute.  

[Bodhi]

For those a bit confused, here:

Bodhi's comment appeared, I commented on it, and then Bodhi's comment quickly disappeared.

It's now back...but AFTER my comment.

I did not read Bodhi's mind.  I'm not clairvoyant, either.

No tinfoil hats required (SLCpunk, where are you??)

ha! I went to modify it and saw you already responded to it so I just put it back the way it was. 

[GeorgeSteele]

No tinfoil hats required (SLCpunk, where are you??)

Nice one!  That guy was a trip.


On topic, this whole thing had me wondering what exactly is the current legal relationship with the former members and how it impacts everything they do.  (I know, business stuff, boring, yada yada).  I looked up the Guns n' Roses trademark on the US govt database (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ow78ij.2.16 ) and it shows that the trademark is still owned by: "GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP".  Makes no sense, how is that possible?

[pilferk]

No tinfoil hats required (SLCpunk, where are you??)

Nice one!  That guy was a trip.


On topic, this whole thing had me wondering what exactly is the current legal relationship with the former members and how it impacts everything they do.  (I know, business stuff, boring, yada yada).  I looked up the Guns n' Roses trademark on the US govt database (http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4804:ow78ij.2.16 ) and it shows that the trademark is still owned by: "GUNS N' ROSES composed of W. Axl Rose, Saul Hudson and Michael "Duff" McKagan, all U.S. citizens PARTNERSHIP".  Makes no sense, how is that possible?

Because there is a difference between Guns n Roses, the trademark, Guns n Roses, the business entity (as it exists now), Guns n Roses, the band (the current copyrighted name), and Guns n Roses the consortium (holding the publishing rights of the original music, via RIAA).  It gets very confusing.

As for the US govt trademark database...it typically only holds the info of the trademark as it was last updated when filed (re-filed).  There is no onus for them to refile, even if the business entity changes membership...as long as there is at least one member of the original partnership (or LLC/LLP) remaining.  It looks like they removed Izzy and Steven, at one point..but left it afterwards (probably because the partnership agreement, itself, was updated to reflect changes to use of the copyrighted name...so they left the TM alone).

Here's the long and short of it:
The AFD era band members, in trying to be "nice", screwed themselves, royally (out of royalties, as it were).  They all decided to create a publishing consortium and give EQUAL CREDIT to all members for the music they created on AFD.  Now...since they all have equal credit..they all get equal say in how they're used (thus was the resolution of the most recent lawsuit).  Any single member can veto....

You notice that changed with UYI?

[GeorgeSteele]

Because there is a difference between Guns n Roses, the trademark, Guns n Roses, the business entity (as it exists now), Guns n Roses, the band (the current copyrighted name), and Guns n Roses the consortium (holding the publishing rights of the original music, via RIAA).  It gets very confusing.

As for the US govt trademark database...it typically only holds the info of the trademark as it was last updated when filed (re-filed).  There is no onus for them to refile, even if the business entity changes membership...as long as there is at least one member of the original partnership (or LLC/LLP) remaining.  It looks like they removed Izzy and Steven, at one point..but left it afterwards (probably because the partnership agreement, itself, was updated to reflect changes to use of the copyrighted name...so they left the TM alone).

Here's the long and short of it:
The AFD era band members, in trying to be "nice", screwed themselves, royally (out of royalties, as it were).  They all decided to create a publishing consortium and give EQUAL CREDIT to all members for the music they created on AFD.  Now...since they all have equal credit..they all get equal say in how they're used (thus was the resolution of the most recent lawsuit).  Any single member can veto....

You notice that changed with UYI?

Thanks.  The confusing part to me is that it shows the name is still owned by the Axl-Slash-Duff partnership.  I has always thought Axl now owned it alone.  Aren't registered trademark owners supposed to record ownership changes?

Also, the database includes a 2013 filing to renew the trademark.  Axl signed it as a 'Partner' of 'Guns n' Roses?  Who is he partners with?  None of my business, I know, but still, I'm curious about that.

They actually never removed Izzy and Steve.  According to the file history, they never got around to filing for the trademark until 1992.  That's rather negligent of prior management. 

[pilferk]

Thanks.  The confusing part to me is that it shows the name is still owned by the Axl-Slash-Duff partnership.  I has always thought Axl now owned it alone.  Aren't registered trademark owners supposed to record ownership changes?

Also, the database includes a 2013 filing to renew the trademark.  Axl signed it as a 'Partner' of 'Guns n' Roses?  Who is he partners with?  None of my business, I know, but still, I'm curious about that.

They actually never removed Izzy and Steve.  According to the file history, they never got around to filing for the trademark until 1992.  That's rather negligent of prior management. 

They only would record ownership changes if it moved to a new entity.  LLP/LLC's, and even some forms of other legal parnterships, exist so long as ONE of the partners is still part of the entity.  Ex: Dr A, Dr. B, and Dr. C all form a practice partnership, together.  Dr. B leaves, Dr C retires, and they add Dr. E and Dr. F.  Still the same legal entity (depending on how it was formed)...just with new membership.

In this case, though, given the refile in 2013...maybe it's a little different that what I previously understood.

It could be that Axl has sole right to USE the copyrighted name (afaik without compensation), via the partnership agreement addendums....not that he outright "owns" the asst.  Maybe THAT partnership still, technically, OWNS the trademark.  We know it was never COMPLETELY dissolved, because it's existence controls the publishing rights of the consortium....at least in the eyes of the courts.  It's also possible a new, different "partnership" emerged to control joint owned assets, after what we thought was the dissolution of the "original" PA...but I'm not sure why the TM would be considered under that umbrella.

Maybe it's just assigned the use of that "asset" soley to Axl Rose.  And he would be the only one who would have to sign anything, since, in that matter, he's acting as a duly appointed representative of the partnership, and the agreement specifically says that falls solely under his purview.

Originally, reading the addendums, I took away that the assignment was outside the boundries of the partnership...meaning it was a REassignment of the asset to Axl.  But...in looking at the filings...it's possible that the partnership is simply assigning sole use, within the confines of the agreement, to one particular partner.

I'd have to re-read them (find them) again to be more sure....I could have sworn that the wording "upon dissolution of the partnership" was conditional on the reassignment....

So...probably still confused, eh?  I told you...

The truth is: Without extensive access to all the legal paperwork and filings, all we can do is some guesswork...

[GeorgeSteele]

^ No, I kind of get it now and I think your hunch is very likely to be right.  The partnership still owns the name but Axl has the right to use it exclusively.  But it appears from this current fiasco that other stuff besides the name remain under the partnership's control...

[D-GenerationX]

All very interesting stuff there, pilferk.  Thanks for posting it.

[Annie]

I didn't realize all this was going on. Those concerts totally rocked. This is a very sad state of affairs.

[rebelhipi]

Thumbs up for Pilferk  for great info about copyright laws.


Could it mean that everything that the name Guns N'Roses releases, slash and duff has the right to veto it ?



Anyway i hope they will get it sorted, or at least someone would pull up the good old anymous bluray upload to piratebay, if things are not going to work. Trent Reznor did that with one of his dvds.


What the fans can always do is boycot upcoming slash releases...

[adydas78]

I was actually thinking that leaking the blu ray would be a possibility...although would not make much business sense and would do no good to anyone except for the fans. But at the end of the day this is a business and money do matter.

I can understand all parties not letting go and claim anything that can be rightfully claimed. And about Slash, I for one would not boycott any of his releases, I actually enjoy them. Made in Stoke blu-ray is an awesome release, I truly hope there's more to come and looking for ward to his new album this year. As I'm looking forward to any GNR releases.

[D-GenerationX]

Yeah, if something disparaging happened, we'd have heard it by now.  It would have been all anyone was talking about online the very next day.

It would also obviously be a suicide mission.  You aren't going to pull that shit on a night you know you are recording for a possible commercial release.

Maybe its something goofy.  Like them showing shots of the fans coming and someone saying "DJ is the best guitarist this band ever had" or something.  Is you were Slash's people, you'd conceivably ask why that is in there.

[pilferk]

Thumbs up for Pilferk  for great info about copyright laws.


Could it mean that everything that the name Guns N'Roses releases, slash and duff has the right to veto it ?

No. Because one way or the other, axl has sole use of the name (if not ownership). They can't veto any new material he releases under that name, because of the partnership addendums.

But...anything published containing the old material would be slightly different.  Live performance is different  (esp when every venue has an Riaa use license) than broadcast/video publishing it.....

[pilferk]

Yeah, if something disparaging happened, we'd have heard it by now.  It would have been all anyone was talking about online the very next day.

It would also obviously be a suicide mission.  You aren't going to pull that shit on a night you know you are recording for a possible commercial release.

Maybe its something goofy.  Like them showing shots of the fans coming and someone saying "DJ is the best guitarist this band ever had" or something.  Is you were Slash's people, you'd conceivably ask why that is in there.

Could be signs in the audience, or just the fact someone didn't like the editIng, arrangement, or presentation of the material, too. The reasons allowed for objection are pretty wide open and subjective. Really could be anything, or nothing ( and holding out for more money), or any point between. We won't know until/unless one of the old membership own up to it.

[slash&axl]

Ok, so enough time has passed now, has this been cancelled completely or what?

[Gilbyfan]

Hopefully just postponed, but who would know. Guess it depends how long it takes to sort out a deal with Slash.

[HBK]

I believe, postponet

 

[D-GenerationX]

I don't know about that, guys.

Presumably the plan was to have this out as they were out on tour.  Assuming this legal wrangling stretches past when the tour ends, will there be huge incentive to get it out?

Not to mention the fact that the longer this drags on, the older that performance gets.

[Ginger King]

I don't know about that, guys.

Presumably the plan was to have this out as they were out on tour.  Assuming this legal wrangling stretches past when the tour ends, will there be huge incentive to get it out?

Not to mention the fact that the longer this drags on, the older that performance gets.

My guess:  into the vault it goes.

[D-GenerationX]

I don't know about that, guys.

Presumably the plan was to have this out as they were out on tour.  Assuming this legal wrangling stretches past when the tour ends, will there be huge incentive to get it out?

Not to mention the fact that the longer this drags on, the older that performance gets.

My guess:  into the vault it goes.

Same here. 

One day, to be shown as a double feature with the 'Better' video.