Any significance? Axl switches from ASCAP to SESAC

[Spirit]

Checked out the ASCAP website today and Slash is no longer an ASCAP writer either... No info about any new affiliation though.



Edited to add:

To my knowledge they have both been registered with ASCAP throughout their career. Is it a coincidence they've switched it up within one months time?

[Voodoochild]

Duff is not an ASCAP writer either. Did he ever was?

[Spirit]

Duff is not an ASCAP writer either. Did he ever was?

I'm pretty sure he was, but I'm not sure when he dropped out.

If anyone has Give Em Hell (latest Baz album, 2013), could you check the liner notes for the song Duff co-wrote? It should mention this.

[Spirit]

This note (1) has now been added to Slash, Duff and the "Guns N' Roses Music" -partnership:




Can anyone shed a light on what this entails? Could a new partnership agreement have been made, or could Slash and Duff have now been included in Black Frog Music?

[JustanUrchin]

Removing material from the registry is legally significant.  It is astonishing that this thread has little interest while there are pages on who's attending what show where!  If two of the four songwriters for this track have no "current affiliation" as recently recorded by ASCAP, while the third writer (who is now performing with the two unaffiliated) has recently transferred rights to SESAC, and all of this occurred in conjunction with a new calendar year and an announcement to "reunite," then it could very well be an indication of modified terms to the partnership agreement to which, obviously, all three would have to had agreed upon.  Stated differently, Slash, Izzy and Axl, to my understanding, are the surviving partners of Gn'R, Inc., which is separate from Axl's ownership of the brand (the band name) after Duff and Slash signed it over to Axl.  Slash and Duff have no (recently) reported affiliation for this track while Axl has transferred to SESAC.  All three are now performing for Gn'R, Inc. as opposed to legally fighting one another over merch and licensing as they did for a decade or more.  The fourth songwriter for this track, Izzy, remains with ASCAP, sold his equity partnership share of Gn'R, Inc. years ago and is not performing with Gn'R as an employee of Axl.  While no modifications to the partnership agreement will likely ever see the light of day and Slash and Duff are Axl's employees moving forward (unless they were offered and repurchased shares of the Gn'R name), this registry post is an absolute goldmine!  Most legal documents regarding business affairs can and should be held confidential, but not all aspects of a business can be tucked away from the public (like Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner fleecing the public by operating the RRHOF as a lucrative business)--so great detective work here, Spirit!

[JAEBALL]

Removing material from the registry is legally significant.  It is astonishing that this thread has little interest while there are pages on who's attending what show where!  If two of the four songwriters for this track have no "current affiliation" as recently recorded by ASCAP, while the third writer (who is now performing with the two unaffiliated) has recently transferred rights to SESAC, and all of this occurred in conjunction with a new calendar year and an announcement to "reunite," then it could very well be an indication of modified terms to the partnership agreement to which, obviously, all three would have to had agreed upon.  Stated differently, Slash, Izzy and Axl, to my understanding, are the surviving partners of Gn'R, Inc., which is separate from Axl's ownership of the brand (the band name) after Duff and Slash signed it over to Axl.  Slash and Duff have no (recently) reported affiliation for this track while Axl has transferred to SESAC.  All three are now performing for Gn'R, Inc. as opposed to legally fighting one another over merch and licensing as they did for a decade or more.  The fourth songwriter for this track, Izzy, remains with ASCAP, sold his equity partnership share of Gn'R, Inc. years ago and is not performing with Gn'R as an employee of Axl.  While no modifications to the partnership agreement will likely ever see the light of day and Slash and Duff are Axl's employees moving forward (unless they were offered and repurchased shares of the Gn'R name), this registry post is an absolute goldmine!  Most legal documents regarding business affairs can and should be held confidential, but not all aspects of a business can be tucked away from the public (like Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner fleecing the public by operating the RRHOF as a lucrative business)--so great detective work here, Spirit!

It's all ancient greek to me... and probably that way for most of us. Thanks for a little insight.

Does this mean the three of them are basically partners now in all things GNR related with the exception of ownership of the GNR name?

[sky dog]

I am betting 1. They are moving to Sesac like Axl did and 2. They formed a new partnership for future Gnr ventures.

obviously just a guess.

[JustanUrchin]

Removing material from the registry is legally significant.  It is astonishing that this thread has little interest while there are pages on who's attending what show where!  If two of the four songwriters for this track have no "current affiliation" as recently recorded by ASCAP, while the third writer (who is now performing with the two unaffiliated) has recently transferred rights to SESAC, and all of this occurred in conjunction with a new calendar year and an announcement to "reunite," then it could very well be an indication of modified terms to the partnership agreement to which, obviously, all three would have to had agreed upon.  Stated differently, Slash, Izzy and Axl, to my understanding, are the surviving partners of Gn'R, Inc., which is separate from Axl's ownership of the brand (the band name) after Duff and Slash signed it over to Axl.  Slash and Duff have no (recently) reported affiliation for this track while Axl has transferred to SESAC.  All three are now performing for Gn'R, Inc. as opposed to legally fighting one another over merch and licensing as they did for a decade or more.  The fourth songwriter for this track, Izzy, remains with ASCAP, sold his equity partnership share of Gn'R, Inc. years ago and is not performing with Gn'R as an employee of Axl.  While no modifications to the partnership agreement will likely ever see the light of day and Slash and Duff are Axl's employees moving forward (unless they were offered and repurchased shares of the Gn'R name), this registry post is an absolute goldmine!  Most legal documents regarding business affairs can and should be held confidential, but not all aspects of a business can be tucked away from the public (like Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner fleecing the public by operating the RRHOF as a lucrative business)--so great detective work here, Spirit!

It's all ancient greek to me... and probably that way for most of us. Thanks for a little insight.

Does this mean the three of them are basically partners now in all things GNR related with the exception of ownership of the GNR name?

As a returning member of the Gn?R online community after a decade or more absence, it seems the boards are rife with confusion about the partnership versus the brand name (the Gn?R name itself).  A simpler way of understanding the difference is to consider a food manufacturer who purchases the ?recipe? and the copyrighted brand name for a cereal so that it can produce and distribute it.  The purchasing manufacturer doesn?t want the ?recipe? without the brand name?the brand name is what is familiar to customers.  The original developer of said ?recipe? and holder of the copyrighted name may take any number of legal actions during the sale to preserve his legal interests, monetary and otherwise moving forward, including requiring to be on the board of the new manufacturer, requiring a certain percentage stake, and retaining any number of legal rights (and residual payments) even after it sells it to another manufacturer.  If part of the sale moving forward is that the new manufacturer cannot change the ?recipe? without agreement from the original developer, now a board member (stakeholder, etc.), then the original developer can and should challenge this action by filing suit.  While this litigation unfolds, the new manufacturer carries on business with the copyrighted name of the cereal because it now owns the name.  This process can go on for years.  But if the case(s) never go to trial, then there will never be public record of what actually occurred to settle the dispute BUT if there were some change to the registry in the copyright office, the information changed would provide clear clues as to how the dispute was settled when coupled with publicly known facts, such as the original developer remaining on the board of the new manufacturer after the dispute is settled.

[D-GenerationX]

Dude, make punctuation your friend.

But, if I am understanding these walls of text correctly, could this bode well for new things in the future?

[JustanUrchin]

Removing material from the registry is legally significant.  It is astonishing that this thread has little interest while there are pages on who's attending what show where!  If two of the four songwriters for this track have no "current affiliation" as recently recorded by ASCAP, while the third writer (who is now performing with the two unaffiliated) has recently transferred rights to SESAC, and all of this occurred in conjunction with a new calendar year and an announcement to "reunite," then it could very well be an indication of modified terms to the partnership agreement to which, obviously, all three would have to had agreed upon.  Stated differently, Slash, Izzy and Axl, to my understanding, are the surviving partners of Gn'R, Inc., which is separate from Axl's ownership of the brand (the band name) after Duff and Slash signed it over to Axl.  Slash and Duff have no (recently) reported affiliation for this track while Axl has transferred to SESAC.  All three are now performing for Gn'R, Inc. as opposed to legally fighting one another over merch and licensing as they did for a decade or more.  The fourth songwriter for this track, Izzy, remains with ASCAP, sold his equity partnership share of Gn'R, Inc. years ago and is not performing with Gn'R as an employee of Axl.  While no modifications to the partnership agreement will likely ever see the light of day and Slash and Duff are Axl's employees moving forward (unless they were offered and repurchased shares of the Gn'R name), this registry post is an absolute goldmine!  Most legal documents regarding business affairs can and should be held confidential, but not all aspects of a business can be tucked away from the public (like Rolling Stone and Jann Wenner fleecing the public by operating the RRHOF as a lucrative business)--so great detective work here, Spirit!

It's all ancient greek to me... and probably that way for most of us. Thanks for a little insight.

Does this mean the three of them are basically partners now in all things GNR related with the exception of ownership of the GNR name?

As a returning member of the Gn?R online community after a decade or more absence, it seems the boards are rife with confusion about the partnership versus the brand name (the Gn?R name itself).  A simpler way of understanding the difference is to consider a food manufacturer who purchases the ?recipe? and the copyrighted brand name for a cereal so that it can produce and distribute it.  The purchasing manufacturer doesn?t want the ?recipe? without the brand name?the brand name is what is familiar to customers.  The original developer of said ?recipe? and holder of the copyrighted name may take any number of legal actions during the sale to preserve his legal interests, monetary and otherwise moving forward, including requiring to be on the board of the new manufacturer, requiring a certain percentage stake, and retaining any number of legal rights (and residual payments) even after it sells it to another manufacturer.  If part of the sale moving forward is that the new manufacturer cannot change the ?recipe? without agreement from the original developer, now a board member (stakeholder, etc.), then the original developer can and should challenge this action by filing suit.  While this litigation unfolds, the new manufacturer carries on business with the copyrighted name of the cereal because it now owns the name.  This process can go on for years.  But if the case(s) never go to trial, then there will never be public record of what actually occurred to settle the dispute BUT if there were some change to the registry in the copyright office, the information changed would provide clear clues as to how the dispute was settled when coupled with publicly known facts, such as the original developer remaining on the board of the new manufacturer after the dispute is settled.

That doesn?t answer your question, JAEBALL, but your question is impossible for anyone to definitively answer. Except, of course, for those involved and their respective attorneys.  But the proximity of the registry changes to the announcement of ?reuniting? with the known fact that Izzy has not ?reunited? and remains registered with ASCAP, is nothing short of a smoking gun that the three parties have resolved all legal disputes regarding Gn?R, Inc., and not just as it relates to licensing and merch.  It could, and very likely, does mean that they have modified the partnership terms and not just about previously recorded material (songs, logos, etc.) but material produced in the future.  But, again, unless Slash and Duff were offered to repurchase shares in the brand (band) name and did so or this issue (and related issues like percentages of creative control, albums to be produced, etc.) was specifically addressed in a modified partnership agreement, then they will be Axl?s employees moving forward (and Axl where say when and where, if ever, a new album is released and who plays what on it, when and where they tour, etc.).  Stated differently, what Spirit uncovered is a smoking gun but in the best possible sense!  As a bit of a P.S. to my example about the ?recipe? of a cereal and the brand name of said cereal, I used the term ?copyright? rather than ?trademark? to draw a clear line from my example to the Gn?R name and music produced thereunder as distinguished from the partnership itself.  And, for all we know, there may have been some mechanism in their former partnership agreement where if Slash and Duff were not performing/recording under the Axl owned brand (band) name, then some other(s) represented Slash and Duff?s interests in the partnership in their performing/recording absence (like a board, but with attorneys).

[JustanUrchin]

Dude, make punctuation your friend.

But, if I am understanding these walls of text correctly, could this bode well for new things in the future?

Agreed, when the subject matter permits such!  Legal premises, even summarized, do not lend themselves to terse sentences.  And yes, Spirit's find is the most significant type imaginable.  It is concrete evidence of some level of (likely full) resolution to former legal disputes AND nothing short of a smoking gun on a modified agreement regarding future material.  No rumors, speculation, or splicing together of known or interpreted fact--which is the reason I bolted from these boards more than decade ago.  That is not to suggest, though, that there is anything wrong with fans doing so during a 25 year period where the sole owner of the brand (band) name produced 15 songs of new material!  All fans want is to hear their favorite band record and tour new music!

[Factory Girl]

This is really interesting, but also very complicated, since there's different affiliations (?), like the brand, the GNR company itself, song rights etc. They are all separate business if I'm not mistaken.
It's so much stuff that it seems these guys will be connected for the rest of their lives! It's great that they finally could agree on something, it must be really exhausting having to deal with all this just to....I don't know, sell some tshirts.

Thanks for trying, JustanUrchin!

[JustanUrchin]

This is really interesting, but also very complicated, since there's different affiliations (?), like the brand, the GNR company itself, song rights etc. They are all separate business if I'm not mistaken.
It's so much stuff that it seems these guys will be connected for the rest of their lives! It's great that they finally could agree on something, it must be really exhausting having to deal with all this just to....I don't know, sell some tshirts.

Thanks for trying, JustanUrchin!

Thanks!  I cannot overstate the legal significance of the registry changes, and the timing thereof at the start of this calendar year, as uncovered by Spirit.  In 2005, Slash and Duff sued Axl because Axl transferred publishing from GNR Music to Black Frog Music Publishing (which is a shell entity because Axl owns it).  Slash and Duff did not become aware of this until their ASCAP checks stopped.  While Axl, as the sole owner of the brand (band) name, could do as he pleases with publishing the then future material (ChiDem), he could not do the same with the back catalogue which is copyrighted material owned by the partnership of Slash, Duff and Axl and dedicated to a particular publishing company.  Hence, the decade plus feud around licensing where Axl refused to agree to license songs for movie soundtracks and sued Activision for including Slash?s image on a Guitar Hero game.

[jarmo]

I think it's kinda obvious that most fans would feel more interested in talking about things like shows and what happened (in front of them or on Youtube) than something like this.





/jarmo

[JustanUrchin]

I think it's kinda obvious that most fans would feel more interested in talking about things like shows and what happened (in front of them or on Youtube) than something like this.





/jarmo

I couldn?t say as fans of the band come from all walks of life and occupations.  But as a long-time fan and supporter of the band and one with more than a passing familiarity with business entities, this is the most exciting thread for me.  Whatever wedge that may have existed due to personality conflicts and egos, the litigation guaranteed animosity and intransigence on all sides.  This, of course, results in parties making statements like, ?Not in this lifetime? even if they want resolution.  I should know?I?ve made similar comments.

The registry movement on publishing of the back catalogue between the three partners in this partnership would look great pinned to the top of the board as it is direct evidence of resolution to a decade plus legal battle.  It likewise points to a modified partnership agreement, and if so, a primary reason would be because of a design for the three of them to publish new music.  This isn?t a sexy topic, but it is the only topic that evinces a legal resolution while clearing the path for what fans have clamored for over many years:  new music from a fully or semi-reunited line-up.

[jarmo]

Yes, I see that. If you're interested in business or law, then this might be interesting.

If you know nothing about it, it's easier to comment on something like a concert.


But until someone clarifies what this might mean, it's all speculation.



/jarmo

[Voodoochild]

I sure get that people overlook it because it's just plain hard to understand.

Tho if I understood it right, it means that the feud is settled and we all have a happy family here. If it means we'll have babies, we still don't know, but at least they are having sex again.

Actually, I think the legal agreements between those guys made it much easier for them to sitting down and finally talk face to face again. From what I remember, they had been talking through lawyers for years, even when Slash was still in the band somehow, and that's obviously a harsh way to keep a partnership - and of course, it's extremely bad for any friendship. That's why I assumed it was all settled when they agreed to perform togheter and announced the regrouping.

One thing: they announced the regrouping in January 6th, five days after the ASCAP indication:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=66753.0

But of course, the movie theater teases and agreements to play Coachella and other stuff took place before that. I don't know when exactly the official merch in GNR.com, but seems like it was mid-2015, right? I guess it was by that time when they all agreed to regroup, at the very last. Sure they had to resolve all the legal matters before a proper announcement, but they had plenty of time to get back in touch throughout the whole year.

[JustanUrchin]

I sure get that people overlook it because it's just plain hard to understand.

Tho if I understood it right, it means that the feud is settled and we all have a happy family here. If it means we'll have babies, we still don't know, but at least they are having sex again.

Actually, I think the legal agreements between those guys made it much easier for them to sitting down and finally talk face to face again. From what I remember, they had been talking through lawyers for years, even when Slash was still in the band somehow, and that's obviously a harsh way to keep a partnership - and of course, it's extremely bad for any friendship. That's why I assumed it was all settled when they agreed to perform togheter and announced the regrouping.

One thing: they announced the regrouping in January 6th, five days after the ASCAP indication:

http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/board/index.php?topic=66753.0

But of course, the movie theater teases and agreements to play Coachella and other stuff took place before that. I don't know when exactly the official merch in GNR.com, but seems like it was mid-2015, right? I guess it was by that time when they all agreed to regroup, at the very last. Sure they had to resolve all the legal matters before a proper announcement, but they had plenty of time to get back in touch throughout the whole year.

Perfectly (and succinctly) put!

[JustanUrchin]

Yes, I see that. If you're interested in business or law, then this might be interesting.

If you know nothing about it, it's easier to comment on something like a concert.


But until someone clarifies what this might mean, it's all speculation.



/jarmo

Agree on the first two lines, but disagree on the last.     The registry and the information provided thereon is not speculative, rather it is direct evidence of legal resolution.  Partnership dealings/movement regarding the very subject matter of litigation (here, licensing and ASCAP payments of copyrighted material) involving named parties is not speculative, rather it only occurs after resolution of litigation via trial or settlement. 

For example, Voodoo, you, and I are in a partnership but you two have signed over the brand (business) name to me and I conduct business under that name.  You two subsequently discover that I have transferred some (physical) capital assets, and pursuant to the partnership agreement I cannot do such without your prior knowledge.  You and Voodoo file suit.  It would be legally imprudent (and very costly) that I attempt any further unilateral decision on the capital until the litigation is resolved.  So, I continue business as usual under the name, but everything stops regarding my transfer of capital until there is settlement between us or the Court (or jury) decides for us.

If an interested investor in our partnership later learns that (for example, through announcement of new contracts involving the capital, permitting, refinancing collateral, capital gains sell-offs, etc.) that the formerly disputed assets are being moved, then the investor knows that there has been a resolution of the subject matter.  Further, if the three partners are acting in concert with the assets, then it is safe for the investor to assume that not only has there been legal resolution of the subject matter but that we have modified one or more terms in our partnership agreement as we are moving the assets as a body.  And, finally, if we three partners announce to the public that we have agreed to contract our equipment on a massive building project, that all three of us will be on-site as the construction proceeds, and we are all seen smiling and working together?well, then, that?s all the circumstantial evidence that the investor needs to know that the legal matter was resolved amicably to everyone?s satisfaction regardless of the time it took to resolve or the animosity involved.  The investor has direct evidence that the capital (subject matter of the litigation) is free to move and therefore knows that the matter has been largely (or fully) resolved even if he never learns of its details.  He knows that this clears the road for the business because the business is based upon (physical) capital assets.

The business (assets) of music is based upon copyrighted material.   

[Spirit]

I don't know if it's relevant, but if you search the ASCAP database and have a look at any of Slash's solo songs, the same note exist there (for Slash). Only with another date from 2015.