LTD Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 How many of these has Axl ever won?Won as in court ruling in his favor or some out-of-court settlement benefical to Axl having been reached? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooze72 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 When they settle out of court, the case is dismissed. Yes, but was this case really settled out of court or was it dismissed because of other reasons? If it was dismissed because it was settled out of court, then, as I wrote, Slash and Duff failed to settle it in their favour (as per the court papers) because Axl still, presumably, keeps blocking the use of GN'R songs in movies and commercials.They settled. That means Axl paid. He was the defendant. Slash and Duff were not paying all those lawyer fees just to drop it. It was never really about blocking the use of GNR songs, it was about compensation. I imagine it was a combination of a payout and renegotiating the splits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 When they settle out of court, the case is dismissed. Yes, but was this case really settled out of court or was it dismissed because of other reasons? If it was dismissed because it was settled out of court, then, as I wrote, Slash and Duff failed to settle it in their favour (as per the court papers) because Axl still, presumably, keeps blocking the use of GN'R songs in movies and commercials.They settled. That means Axl paid. He was the defendant. Slash and Duff were not paying all those lawyer fees just to drop it. It was never really about blocking the use of GNR songs, it was about compensation. I imagine it was a combination of a payout and renegotiating the splits.Greedy bastards How do you know this, by the way, was it ever disclosed to the public? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigcountry Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Any lawsuit I ever read about that was dismissed it was one of 2 way.1. The judge dismisses case because the defendants didn't have the proof which seems to be the case hear.2. The judge dismisses the case because both parties have come to an agreement on the terms of the lawsuit and those agreement are documented on the court filing and is free for anyone to see that has access to in by either paying for the service or it is proved free for anyone. Now this lawsuit was a while ago, well if it happened today we would see a lot more info on the case information using pacer or if the court district posts the cases online. I did not see on the court filing where it said any agreement was made or if it was to be private. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there is no dana only zool Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Not for anything but, could all of this constant, uh, "litigation" or whatever it's called, help to possibly explain why nuGNR (fucking hate that term. swear it's the only time I'll ever use it, so help me God) stayed in silence and without motion for so many years? As if to say like, legal stuff prevented them from planning tours & releasing albums and stuff? Axl's said that before and I've always taken his word for it. With all of these docs, it just irons it in even more for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoulMonster Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Not for anything but, could all of this constant, uh, "litigation" or whatever it's called, help to possibly explain why nuGNR (fucking hate that term. swear it's the only time I'll ever use it, so help me God) stayed in silence and without motion for so many years? As if to say like, legal stuff prevented them from planning tours & releasing albums and stuff? Axl's said that before and I've always taken his word for it. With all of these docs, it just irons it in even more for me. I think it is obvious that al these court cases must drain a lot of energy, resources and time and leave less for music. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Who gives a fuck about all this?...we just want new music. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
there is no dana only zool Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Not for anything but, could all of this constant, uh, "litigation" or whatever it's called, help to possibly explain why nuGNR (fucking hate that term. swear it's the only time I'll ever use it, so help me God) stayed in silence and without motion for so many years? As if to say like, legal stuff prevented them from planning tours & releasing albums and stuff? Axl's said that before and I've always taken his word for it. With all of these docs, it just irons it in even more for me. I think it is obvious that al these court cases must drain a lot of energy, resources and time and leave less for music.Who gives a fuck about all this?...we just want new music.Yea exactly, what Soul said should help answer your question I think. All of the stress that goes along with lawsuits probably saps someone of a tremendous amount of creative energy and focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARBeast Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Good god! Too many lawsuits!!I blame Beta..ridiculous! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
volcano62 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Good god! Too many lawsuits!!I blame Beta..ridiculous!Yeah because Beta is responsible for Axl's lawsuits...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GN'R Lies Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 Who gives a fuck about all this?The people posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alfierose Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 This is a pretty interesting thread. Good find on the pdf. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooze72 Posted November 12, 2013 Share Posted November 12, 2013 The court cases impact almost every aspect of Axl's career from writing to releasing to performing music. I'd hazard a guess that even the set list is influenced by litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 The outcome escapes me at the moment, I haven't looked at the PDF but pretty sure Slash and Duff went into it mostly looking for compensation. And pretty sure they all have licensing veto power re: the songs. When Axl took the steps to control of the name -- the contract stated that everybody who left the partnership would no longer have rights to use the name, but the clause excluded Axl -- the band didn't figure out until years later they should have contested that clause or been compensated for it. It was too late to contest it, so they wanted cash. Around that time Sanctuary was in the picture throwing money around like water, so I imagine yet even more money changed hands settling the case. Its all fuzzy, although it was on my radar at the time. I may have even popped by the courthouse. (Was the Duff/Slash case in Santa Monica?) Not sure I ever heard the outcome though, other than they settled. So many cases to keep track of. There was the suit against Geffen (which they lost) re: Live Era, and then the publishing suit where Sanctuary set Axl up with another publisher and he pocketed $100,000 or something without sharing. There was a lot of other business weirdness I'd love to know more about. Sanctuary set up a huge merchandising deal that really paid a huge advance and I don't think anything ever came of it. The big expensive Japanese Las Vegas DVD production also was never released, that must have been another payout. I'd like to track down Merck or look at the public company docs from Sanctuary for an estimate on how much Axl cost them. Although I'm pretty sure Sanctuary's strategy was always to spend a ton on money on smoke and mirrors 'assets' like the Axl deals, rake in the investor cash and split. Which is pretty much what happened. Sanctuary sounded like a big financial mess of a label. I don't know if GNR still have anything to do with Sanctuary, but this happened earlier this year. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/entertainment/la-et-ct-universal-music-agrees-to-sell-sanctuary-records-20130214 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snooze72 Posted November 13, 2013 Share Posted November 13, 2013 (edited) Sanctuary sounded like a big financial mess of a label. I don't know if GNR still have anything to do with Sanctuary, but this happened earlier this year. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/14/entertainment/la-et-ct-universal-music-agrees-to-sell-sanctuary-records-20130214Axl/GNR were part of Sanctuary Management, not the label, different tentacles of the Group. The financial dealings of the whole works were insane. Edited November 13, 2013 by snooze72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niceguy Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Wow, what an eye opener, that PDF. This explains why duff and slash are still equal partners with Axl in determining usage of GNR music in film, tv, etc. ChiDem doesn't count, of course. That's not GNR. 1. GNR was legally a partnership between Axl slash and duff. 2. Axl made everyone sign an agreement that if Axl leaves GNR, then Axl gets to keep the name GNR. This is JUST the name, NOT legal rights to the albums they created together. 3. Axl quit GNR, and now he gets to use the name GNR to start a new company. It could be a band, a grocery store, a book store, whatever. Only Axl can call it GNR. 4. But now Axl isn't a partner in the original GNR! Wow, this actually makes sense to me. Axl quit the original partnership-- so therefore Axl has no legal rights involving whatever original GNR owns! AFD, UYI, Lies... That partnership is what Axl quit. So therefore, only slash and duff have the legal right to make decisions involving those albums. This actually makes perfect sense, and now I see why this has carried on with so many lawsuits back and forth for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Forgive me everyone but I´m very confused. The day Slash and Duff signed the infamous document about the GN´R name meant they no longer have rights except royalties for AFD, Lies and UYI.If some movie production wants an old band GN´R song they have to deal with Axl. If Axl doesn´t want that song in that movie he has the right to refuse. And nobody can say anything. However there is another twist. Axl left the band in 1995. Slash and Duff were still members. But I don´t know in what kind of contract situation. So I don´t understand who has the rights to anything.I think the old material they all have to sign off on it? Otherwise how does Axl let Mickey use SCOM for the Wrestler. Common sense prevails mostly. I don't think Axl got them to sign over everything. Just his right to use the name. Edited October 30, 2014 by wasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmanhart408 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 4. But now Axl isn't a partner in the original GNR! Wow, this actually makes sense to me. Axl quit the original partnership-- so therefore Axl has no legal rights involving whatever original GNR owns! AFD, UYI, Lies... That partnership is what Axl quit. So therefore, only slash and duff have the legal right to make decisions involving those albums.Axl IS a partner. This was settled during the 2004(?) lawsuit when Slash and Duff sued Axl over past royalties for merchandise or whatever. This is the same lawsuit where Slash and Duff submitted the Partnership Agreement document themselves! ( I know some people have trouble understanding that lol). So Axl is a partner and all three must sign off on everything related to GNR pre-Chinese era 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Not for anything but, could all of this constant, uh, "litigation" or whatever it's called, help to possibly explain why nuGNR (fucking hate that term. swear it's the only time I'll ever use it, so help me God) stayed in silence and without motion for so many years? As if to say like, legal stuff prevented them from planning tours & releasing albums and stuff? Axl's said that before and I've always taken his word for it. With all of these docs, it just irons it in even more for me. It can't help. I'm not sure if there's a direct suit against Axl using the name to release an album as GNR. I guess he couldn't be talking about it in the press cos it might jeopardise things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitmanhart408 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) Not for anything but, could all of this constant, uh, "litigation" or whatever it's called, help to possibly explain why nuGNR (fucking hate that term. swear it's the only time I'll ever use it, so help me God) stayed in silence and without motion for so many years? As if to say like, legal stuff prevented them from planning tours & releasing albums and stuff? Axl's said that before and I've always taken his word for it. With all of these docs, it just irons it in even more for me. It can't help. I'm not sure if there's a direct suit against Axl using the name to release an album as GNR. I guess he couldn't be talking about it in the press cos it might jeopardise things.Nothing regarding the name legally prevented Axl from releasing an album as GNR. Slowing down matters because of stress and other factors, most likely yes. Regarding touring, that was legally delayed thanks to Azoff. I have read so many legal documents from many of the suits that it all blends together, ahhhh Edited October 30, 2014 by hitmanhart408 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Forgive me everyone but I´m very confused. The day Slash and Duff signed the infamous document about the GN´R name meant they no longer have rights except royalties for AFD, Lies and UYI.If some movie production wants an old band GN´R song they have to deal with Axl. If Axl doesn´t want that song in that movie he has the right to refuse. And nobody can say anything. However there is another twist. Axl left the band in 1995. Slash and Duff were still members. But I don´t know in what kind of contract situation. So I don´t understand who has the rights to anything.I think the old material they all have to sign off on it? Otherwise how does Axl let Mickey use SCOM for the Wrestler.Common sense prevails mostly. I don't think Axl got them to sign over everything. Just his right to use the name.Slash also did original music for the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 So you'd have to say that these suits aren't a big deal. It doesn't stop him doing anything. The worse case scenario is he secured the name and waited until they quit/acted difficult/didn't show up etc. He planned to get rid of them to make an industrial album to keep up with trends. So he got the vision of him in control of GNR with all those benefits. And that's what happened. Maybe not as gloriously as he wanted but now he controls GNR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 It's too bad this band stopped being about music in the mid 90s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) I think Axl was actually trying to fire up the music in his own way. Bus Slash was going in a more back to basics route. It's hard to go in both directions maybe. They just had the money not to have to compromise anymore. Shame. Edited October 30, 2014 by wasted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magisme Posted October 30, 2014 Share Posted October 30, 2014 Slash left in 96. CD was released, possibly begrudgingly, in 2008. Axl hasn't been about the music for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts