Any significance? Axl switches from ASCAP to SESAC

[JustanUrchin]

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.

Note that with, for example, ?Apocalyptic Love,? Myles remains with ASCAP as well as EMI, Happy Papper, and WB (all as expected as publishing entities) while Slash and his Dik Hayd publishing are not currently registered.  Again, the transfer note is for the start of the current calendar year.  While, conversely, for ?Anything Goes,? Adler, Izzy and Weber all remain with ASCAP for licensing/payment as well as Black Frog, GnR Music, and Universal (all publishers) while Axl has transferred and Slash and Duff are unaffiliated.  If Axl, Duff and Slash plan to copyright new music together, then it is unlikely that they would use Slash?s Dik Hayd or Axl?s Black Frog, so it doesn?t really matter where they are registered. 

After a quick search of California?s State Department, it appears Axl has a maze of registered entities.  (A business entity, be it a P.C., sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, LLP, etc., must register with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or state of incorporation).  Axl?s maze of entities appears to be everything from service of process to publishing to touring.  Perhaps a board member here with more time on their hands can track the entity threads down for us, bearing in mind, of course, that any of the members? biz orgs aren?t necessarily registered in California, though it?s likely given the legal climate favoring those in the entertainment biz.  They aren?t necessarily registered under the brand (band) name or partner?s names, either.  Gn?R, Inc., I now see, is dissolved according to my search, so the partnership would have to be re-registered under another name.  This (dissolving an entity?LLP, LLC, PC., etc.) is quite common, and shouldn?t be a cause for concern for fans.  If the partners didn?t just modify some terms of their partnership but dissolved the past partnership to create an entirely new partnership (for different legal rights and protections), then that would be a good time to also change the partnership name.

Entity Name:   GUNS N' ROSES, INC.
Entity Number:   C1441630
Date Filed:   07/25/1988
Status:   DISSOLVED
Jurisdiction:   CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Entity City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025
Agent for Service of Process:   CHARLES SUSSMAN
Agent Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Agent City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025

[FreddieJames]

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.

Note that with, for example, “Apocalyptic Love,” Myles remains with ASCAP as well as EMI, Happy Papper, and WB (all as expected as publishing entities) while Slash and his Dik Hayd publishing are not currently registered.  Again, the transfer note is for the start of the current calendar year.  While, conversely, for “Anything Goes,” Adler, Izzy and Weber all remain with ASCAP for licensing/payment as well as Black Frog, GnR Music, and Universal (all publishers) while Axl has transferred and Slash and Duff are unaffiliated.  If Axl, Duff and Slash plan to copyright new music together, then it is unlikely that they would use Slash’s Dik Hayd or Axl’s Black Frog, so it doesn’t really matter where they are registered. 

After a quick search of California’s State Department, it appears Axl has a maze of registered entities.  (A business entity, be it a P.C., sole proprietorship, corporation, LLC, LLP, etc., must register with the Secretary of State in the state in which it does business or state of incorporation).  Axl’s maze of entities appears to be everything from service of process to publishing to touring.  Perhaps a board member here with more time on their hands can track the entity threads down for us, bearing in mind, of course, that any of the members’ biz orgs aren’t necessarily registered in California, though it’s likely given the legal climate favoring those in the entertainment biz.  They aren’t necessarily registered under the brand (band) name or partner’s names, either.  Gn’R, Inc., I now see, is dissolved according to my search, so the partnership would have to be re-registered under another name.  This (dissolving an entity—LLP, LLC, PC., etc.) is quite common, and shouldn’t be a cause for concern for fans.  If the partners didn’t just modify some terms of their partnership but dissolved the past partnership to create an entirely new partnership (for different legal rights and protections), then that would be a good time to also change the partnership name.

Entity Name:   GUNS N' ROSES, INC.
Entity Number:   C1441630
Date Filed:   07/25/1988
Status:   DISSOLVED
Jurisdiction:   CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Entity City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025
Agent for Service of Process:   CHARLES SUSSMAN
Agent Address:   12424 WILSHIRE BLVD. #1000
Agent City, State, Zip:   LOS ANGELES CA 90025

I think you might be looking at this in a 'way too business' oriented manner. How the business is construed does not really have anything to do with how the copyright regarding the songs and their recordings is handled. Copyright is handled individually. I am not saying what you're saying is NOT true, however, when looking at it from a music industry perspective I see something else.

ASCAP and SESAC are organizations protecting the copyright to a song and are taking care of the payment of fees to its copyright owners. In this case, copyright referring to the songwriters as well as the performers. In my interpretation, what has changed is that Slash and Duff currently do not have a KNOWN affiliation in regards to their copyright to this song (hence the (1) in front of their name). Since they were registered for this song under the 'Guns N Roses Music' publisher/administrators this also now has a (1) in front of its name. Maybe meaning 'take note, no known registered affiliation' meaning there's no clarity about which organization should be payed when using or selling this song. So nothing has changed regarding the Guns N Roses publishing/administration in itself.

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

So to conclude, all this means to me is that Axl changed from ASCAP to SESAC (something you can probably only do per calendar year) and Slash and Duff have not (yet) informed which organization they're now affiliated with for this calendar year.

Of course, I do not know the details. But I do have extensive knowledge on these kinds of organizations and copyrights regarding music and this is nothing out of the ordinary and does not really mean anything regarding future music or business entities.

Ps. English is not my first language so I tried to explain it as good as I possibly can.

[Princess Leia]

Yes, the old partnership was dissolved back in 1995. Later Axl created a new one. I know this because a couple of years I read a legal document posted in another GN'R forum. I didn't read the whole things back then because it a very long PDF with all kind of legal technical language. But in the first page or so it is mantioned that the old partnership was dissolved.

[Spirit]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

[Spirit]

Yes, the old partnership was dissolved back in 1995. Later Axl created a new one. I know this because a couple of years I read a legal document posted in another GN'R forum. I didn't read the whole things back then because it a very long PDF with all kind of legal technical language. But in the first page or so it is mantioned that the old partnership was dissolved.

As I've understood it, here's how the partnership was in the latest years:

"Guns N' Roses Music" ? A publisher which had Slash, Duff and Izzy included as owners.

"Black Frog Music" ? Axl's publisher.


Both these publishers are listed on the classic GN'R songs, and made sure the four of them had the rights to the songs. You can notice that "Guns N' Roses Music" is not listed as a publisher for the Chinese Democracy songs, but "Black Frog Music" is present.

[FreddieJames]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

I understand what you are saying, but composer royalty money can only go -at least in Europe and I thought it was the same in the USA- to the person who actually WROTE the song. It very well might be possible that these four names appearing have to do with giving permission to license/covers, and are not necessarily regarding the payment of said royalties.

I looked it up and on November Rain it is indeed four names names that appear. However, only Axl wrote it so I cannot imagine he gave up 75% of that income or even sold it to S,D&I. So this construction does raise a few questions with me.

EDIT: or they simply decided that the four of them own all the copyrights to all songs on the UYI albums.

[Spirit]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

I understand what you are saying, but composer royalty money can only go -at least in Europe and I thought it was the same in the USA- to the person who actually WROTE the song. It very well might be possible that these four names appearing have to do with giving permission to license/covers, and are not necessarily regarding the payment of said royalties.

I looked it up and on November Rain it is indeed four names names that appear. However, only Axl wrote it so I cannot imagine he gave up 75% of that income or even sold it to S,D&I. So this construction does raise a few questions with me.

EDIT: or they simply decided that the four of them own all the copyrights to all songs on the UYI albums.

It's all very complicated I think.

I think you might be right with that last sentence. Could have been a part of a business deal, maybe the ownership of the name in exchange for equal royalties for the UYI songs.


EDIT: Just to add: writing credits and publishing rights usually go hand in hand as I've understood it. That's probably why on the ASCAP site, the names are listed under the "Writers" heading. But sometimes they aren't the same.

For instance, The Beatles catalog's publishing rights was owned by Michael Jackson for many years.

[FreddieJames]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

I understand what you are saying, but composer royalty money can only go -at least in Europe and I thought it was the same in the USA- to the person who actually WROTE the song. It very well might be possible that these four names appearing have to do with giving permission to license/covers, and are not necessarily regarding the payment of said royalties.

I looked it up and on November Rain it is indeed four names names that appear. However, only Axl wrote it so I cannot imagine he gave up 75% of that income or even sold it to S,D&I. So this construction does raise a few questions with me.

EDIT: or they simply decided that the four of them own all the copyrights to all songs on the UYI albums.

It's all very complicated I think.

I think you might be right with that last sentence. Could have been a part of a business deal, maybe the ownership of the name in exchange for equal royalties for the UYI songs.


EDIT: Just to add: writing credits and publishing rights usually go hand in hand as I've understood it. That's probably why on the ASCAP site, the names are listed under the "Writers" heading. But sometimes they aren't the same.

For instance, The Beatles catalog's publishing rights was owned by Michael Jackson for many years.

Yes, your last edit is in fact true. In case of The Beatles: Paul McCartney still received royalty checks for WRITING the songs, but Michael Jackson got the publisher's cut for that. Usually, a publisher gets 33% in Europe, and the lyricist 33% and the music composer 33%. In the USA I think it's worse for artists, where the publisher usually gets 50%.

And therefore there's not much to conclude from the (1)'s in the ASCAP listing other than Slash and Duff not having a known to ASCAP affiliation with a performing rights organization.

[JustanUrchin]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members? legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

[FreddieJames]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members’ legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

This is where you are interpreting the words in an incorrect manner related to what's being discussed. The before mentioned is ONLY referring to the songs, not logo's and other copyrighted material. ASCAP is only about the copyright on the music.

So publishing and licensing is not being referred to as meaning PRINT, MERCH etc. Publishing means something different relating to the music.

[Johnnyblood]

Basically, look at it this way: if your cover band wants to perform 'Welcome to the Jungle' (or 'Freebird' or 'Call Me Maybe' or whatever) at a paid gig, you are legally required to pay money to ASCAP (or SESAC or whichever agency the rights holder is registered with). That agency collects your payment and then distributes the money to the rights holder(s)--the composer, the producer, the publisher, et al.

These organizations ensure that their members' creative works are not used unless there is compensation to those who hold rights to it. They are not publishers, since they actually also represent publishers and collect money for them, as well the artist, when you play WTTJ at that bar or whatever.

Axl switching from ASCAP to SESAC (or being a member of both) can only mean that it makes financial sense. From the description of SESAC, basically it's a more exclusive organization than ASCAP--so it's the one big names will gravitate to.

[JustanUrchin]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members? legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

This is where you are interpreting the words in an incorrect manner related to what's being discussed. The before mentioned is ONLY referring to the songs, not logo's and other copyrighted material. ASCAP is only about the copyright on the music.

It seems that we're crossing communications.    My focal point is on the decade plus litigation (ownership of the name itself?which controls everything moving forward and gamesmanship with the band?s assets?copyrighted material) and the business entity itself--the partnership.  The CLEARINGHOUSE for copyrighted material is irrelevant to either of these subjects and my conclusions.

[FreddieJames]

It seems that we're crossing communications.    My focal point is on the decade plus litigation (ownership of the name itself—which controls everything moving forward and gamesmanship with the band’s assets—copyrighted material) and the business entity itself--the partnership.  The CLEARINGHOUSE for copyrighted material is irrelevant to either of these subjects and my conclusions.

EDIT: Never mind, I indeed read your post wrong.

[Voodoochild]

Basically, look at it this way: if your cover band wants to perform 'Welcome to the Jungle' (or 'Freebird' or 'Call Me Maybe' or whatever) at a paid gig, you are legally required to pay money to ASCAP (or SESAC or whichever agency the rights holder is registered with). That agency collects your payment and then distributes the money to the rights holder(s)--the composer, the producer, the publisher, et al.

I don't think you need to pay any agency for a performance. It only refers to recording and releasing music.

[FreddieJames]

Basically, look at it this way: if your cover band wants to perform 'Welcome to the Jungle' (or 'Freebird' or 'Call Me Maybe' or whatever) at a paid gig, you are legally required to pay money to ASCAP (or SESAC or whichever agency the rights holder is registered with). That agency collects your payment and then distributes the money to the rights holder(s)--the composer, the producer, the publisher, et al.

I don't think you need to pay any agency for a performance. It only refers to recording and releasing music.

Yes, you do.

For the ones who want to read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights

https://www.sesac.com/About/About.aspx


Next to that, it also refers to recording and releasing music. So, it's both.

[JustanUrchin]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members? legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

This is where you are interpreting the words in an incorrect manner related to what's being discussed. The before mentioned is ONLY referring to the songs, not logo's and other copyrighted material. ASCAP is only about the copyright on the music.

It seems that we're crossing communications.    My focal point is on the decade plus litigation (ownership of the name itself?which controls everything moving forward and gamesmanship with the band?s assets?copyrighted material) and the business entity itself--the partnership.  The CLEARINGHOUSE for copyrighted material is irrelevant to either of these subjects and my conclusions.

To restate my conclusion from prior posts here:  the assets of this business (the band) is its copyrighted material as it is the door to publishing and licensing.  Any group movement of assets, in my experience, does not occur unless there has been legal resolution when the subject matter of the litigation is those very assets.  Spirit uncovered the near simultaneous action of three members (now touring together), and only those three members, in the clearinghouse for their copyrighted material of their back catalogue.  If all manner of publishing and licensing of copyrighted material is the crux of past legal disputes, then transferring those assets in any way (even if just from one clearinghouse to another) is legally significant.

And, yes, my description of business entities, and how litigation affects the mechanics of said entities, is true.  Thank you for noting such.  And your language is no barrier at all!  Your points are clearly stated.  I think that we are just crossing communications on points of emphasis--yours seems to be on the mechanics of the clearinghouse, mine is on the litigation and partnership.

[FreddieJames]

To restate my conclusion from prior posts here:  the assets of this business (the band) is its copyrighted material as it is the door to publishing and licensing.  Any group movement of assets, in my experience, does not occur unless there has been legal resolution when the subject matter of the litigation is those very assets.  Spirit uncovered the near simultaneous action of three members (now touring together), and only those three members, in the clearinghouse for their copyrighted material of their back catalogue.  If all manner of publishing and licensing of copyrighted material is the crux of past legal disputes, then transferring those assets in any way (even if just from one clearinghouse to another) is legally significant.

And, yes, my description of business entities, and how litigation affects the mechanics of said entities, is true.  Thank you for noting such.  And your language is no barrier at all!  Your points are clearly stated.  I think that we are just crossing communications on points of emphasis--yours seems to be on the mechanics of the clearinghouse, mine is on the litigation and partnership.

But the business (the band) is not the same company as the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (as shown on the ASCAP site Spirit showed us). Because in the past Slash, Duff and Axl owned the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (a partnership), but Axl owned the Guns N Roses name, and thus the band (a business) which Slash and Duff were no part of after they left in 96/97. Therefore, if I understand you correctly the copyrighted material in the form of songs have never been 'assets' of the business (the band) the way you describe it. They are two different businesses/companies with each their own 'products'.

Also, they did not collectively 'move their assets'. Axl went to SESAC, and we have no idea where Duff and Slash went.

[C0ma]

What ASCAP and SESAC do is pay the copyright owners and performers on a recording. That is why Izzy is on there as well, since he only PERFORMED on Civil War. Axl, Duff and Slash wrote it. Steven did play on the recording, so he should/could have been on there as well. However, I seem to remember that GnR and Steven settled out of court when he was fired, so I assume he forfeited any performance copyright to that specific recording and is therefore not registered for this song.

To clarify, the people listed on a song's ASCAP site is the people with publishing rights to the song. As a performer on a song you don't automatically receive publishing rights to that song.

If you look at all the songs from UYI (except the covers), it's the same four persons listed for every song: Axl, Slash, Duff and Izzy. I believe this is a direct result of the partnership created, where all four of them have a say in giving the go-ahead for using the song for whatever purpose.

The way it is constructed, it does not in reality reflect who in fact wrote the songs.

ASCAP and SESAC are in fact just middlemen, handling the business side of things. If a song is used somewhere, royalty money for that song is then generated and ASCAP (or SESAC) registers this and makes sure the money ends up with the person(s) owning the rights.

Publishing (specifically licensing) has been the root of the members? legal problems for a decade plus.  This not only creates monumental legal barriers with their assets (copyrighted material, logos, licensing in all areas) but directly relates to whether the members would publish new music moving forward, and, not inconsiderably, creates animosity on all sides until resolved!

This is where you are interpreting the words in an incorrect manner related to what's being discussed. The before mentioned is ONLY referring to the songs, not logo's and other copyrighted material. ASCAP is only about the copyright on the music.

So publishing and licensing is not being referred to as meaning PRINT, MERCH etc. Publishing means something different relating to the music.

Actually print and merch related to songs is covered. For example a song book sold with piano music or guitar tablature is covered by the publishing rights of the music. I know it's a very specific example, but one that does stray from the 'publishing' of audio tracks as is normally thought of.

[Johnnyblood]

Basically, look at it this way: if your cover band wants to perform 'Welcome to the Jungle' (or 'Freebird' or 'Call Me Maybe' or whatever) at a paid gig, you are legally required to pay money to ASCAP (or SESAC or whichever agency the rights holder is registered with). That agency collects your payment and then distributes the money to the rights holder(s)--the composer, the producer, the publisher, et al.

I don't think you need to pay any agency for a performance. It only refers to recording and releasing music.

Yes, you do.

For the ones who want to read it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Composers,_Authors_and_Publishers

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performing_rights

https://www.sesac.com/About/About.aspx


Next to that, it also refers to recording and releasing music. So, it's both.

Yes thank you. I've done some music management and early on was very suprised when small venues prohibited us from playing even one cover song because they couldn't afford the ASCAP fees required. And yes, of course, they also deal will sales and stuff like that, but their biggest strength is getting money whenever a members song is played or broadcast... protecting the rights holder's interests... so radio, streaming, jukeboxes, live performances. Every time you hear November Rain on the radio, ASCAP gets money and distributes it to the rights holder(s). Every time it's played on a jukebox, more money. Streaming, money. So, obviously, higher up the money chain (publishing) there is a big clamour to get more points, credit and such, because then your mechanical income compounds with each use.

[JustanUrchin]

To restate my conclusion from prior posts here:  the assets of this business (the band) is its copyrighted material as it is the door to publishing and licensing.  Any group movement of assets, in my experience, does not occur unless there has been legal resolution when the subject matter of the litigation is those very assets.  Spirit uncovered the near simultaneous action of three members (now touring together), and only those three members, in the clearinghouse for their copyrighted material of their back catalogue.  If all manner of publishing and licensing of copyrighted material is the crux of past legal disputes, then transferring those assets in any way (even if just from one clearinghouse to another) is legally significant.

And, yes, my description of business entities, and how litigation affects the mechanics of said entities, is true.  Thank you for noting such.  And your language is no barrier at all!  Your points are clearly stated.  I think that we are just crossing communications on points of emphasis--yours seems to be on the mechanics of the clearinghouse, mine is on the litigation and partnership.

But the business (the band) is not the same company as the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (as shown on the ASCAP site Spirit showed us). Because in the past Slash, Duff and Axl owned the Guns N Roses MUSIC publishing company (a partnership), but Axl owned the Guns N Roses name, and thus the band (a business) which Slash and Duff were no part of after they left in 96/97. Therefore, if I understand you correctly the copyrighted material in the form of songs have never been 'assets' of the business (the band) the way you describe it. They are two different businesses/companies with each their own 'products'.

Also, they did not collectively 'move their assets'. Axl went to SESAC, and we have no idea where Duff and Slash went.

Yikes!  I don?t want to get trapped in an argument for the sake of arguing, especially when we?re not focused on the same subjects, and are coming at those subjects with different points of understanding and emphasis.  But allow me to preface this ?wall of text,? as another poster accurately described it, by saying that we have much more in store than just a concert leg or two.  Or as another poster wrote, they?re having sex but we just don?t know when there?ll be a baby!

1.  I appreciate your posts on the mechanics of the clearinghouses, but the legal procedures by which they clear and track material and pay the copyright holders is unrelated to my focus.  And I think that we?re on separate pages regarding our understanding of business organizations and their legal significance.  You?re now focused on publishing entities (which, without looking, are probably LLC?s or LLP?s) of one or more members of the partnership.  Axl, as posted above, has registered multiple business entities with the Cal. Department of State.  I described his registered entities as a ?maze.?  Slash also has registered business entities in Cali, and presumably Duff does as well.  This has no bearing on the band as a ?company? if they have different ?companies.?  You are conflating the issue of the brand (band) name, mechanical royalties, and the partnership agreement (which controls the terms of licensing and publishing).  In fact, one of these publishing LLP?s could be you sitting in a physical location in Cali with a phone and a computer doing nothing.  The TYPE of entity gives one legal rights and protections in order to conduct business and avoid personal liability?it does not define the partners? legal arrangement in the parent entity, which is publishing and licensing in the case of this business.

5.  The brand (band) name was the source of prior litigation after Steven had been fired and Izzy sold his share of the partnership.  This occurred because Duff and Slash argued that they had signed their right to the brand (band) name away under duress.  Axl apparently prevailed, and thus retained the name.  That brand was crucial to all then future decisions regarding the band, including its recorded future music (ChiDem), touring, licensing of future music, publishing, etc.  It in no way affected their copyrighted backlog, and still won?t, unless there has been a modified partnership agreement or entirely new partnership agreement executed.  If any agreement recently executed did not provide Duff and Slash an opportunity to repurchase shares of the name, then that does not mean they are necessarily now Axl?s employees as others state as fact.  That would depend upon the modification of the prior partnership agreement or a new agreement.  Stated differently, ownership of the brand (band) name is irrelevant in the sense that Axl could retain ownership of the name but Duff and Slash could have equal one-third (or another percentage) shares in the partnership.  In either event, it?s unlikely that the public would ever know.  And, presumably, most don?t care except for how it relates to publishing future music.

2.  Gn?R, Inc., since dissolved, was an incorporated business, likely with a board.  I continued to refer to it as partnership in the prior posts so as not to confuse anyone who may be following the thread, which is probably only a few of us! (as it wouldn?t make a difference to most, anyhow, if they can?t legally differentiate between a partnership and a corporation.).  Any NEW venture with those three members would need to be registered in the state in which it conducts business or in the state of incorporation.  This entity, by contractual agreement, would establish the duties, rights and responsibilities of all parties to the business organization.  Identification of that new or merged entity in Cali?s DoS database would close this entire thread.

4.  Without getting too deep into the legal weeds, the mere movement of three people who have been involved in litigation on the very subject of that litigation?copyrighted material as it related to publishing and licensing?at all, much less in close proximity, means that all legal claims involving that material have largely (or fully) been settled.  I provided an example above in a different business setting of (physical) assets?machinery that is sold, leased, capitalized, depreciated, etc.  Copyrighted material is not an asset as you have taken from my posts.  Again, crossed communications when simplifying a complex idea.  Copyrighted material is a legal instrument that, when held, legally protects that material.  Even summarizing this as I have done risks misinterpretation for those not familiar.  To this business, a band that produces, sells, merchandises, licenses and tours music, the copyrighted material is then their only business ?asset.?  It is not what each individual has in investments or bank accounts, and it is not patents, design, mortgage-backed securities, consumer goods, etc., etc., etc.  Again, three members of a partnership locked in litigation over copyrighted material and its use regarding all manner of publishing and licensing, have reassigned those rights (or are in the process of doing so) to clearinghouses.  So, yes, those rights are being ?moved? (or freed movement, or transferred, or acted upon, or whatever phrase makes sense to you) and in near conjunction with one another, and ONLY for those three who were in the former partnership agreement, which has likely been modified or dissolved and a new agreement executed.  So, it doesn?t matter where Izzy, Adler, Dizzy, etc. are registered as they are not in the partnership.  Nor does it matter where the publishing entities are registered.  In that sense, the clearinghouse and its mechanics is irrelevant; the relevance is that the subject matter of more than a decade of litigation is now being shopped either individually or as part of a settlement or as part of a modified partnership agreement or as the result of a new agreement.  The point is that simple:  Spirit?s discovery that the subject of a decade plus of litigation is being shopped by the three members entangled in that litigation.  That is huge.

Phew!  I hope that this clears up your understanding of my points of emphasis.  If not, then you?ll just have to challenge me to a sing-off!