sailaway Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Despite the fact that Slash had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses' ongoing popularity and success since 1996, his association with the band lingers, at least as far as certain member of the media are concerned.This lawsuit is one of the dumbest things Axl has ever pulled.Only if he loses. Pretty smart if he wins if you ask me. I'd take a free $20 million.The lawsuit itself makes sense to file as Activision lied to Axl (as it's claimed) but for Axl to repeatedly email Activision asking and making sure that Slash/VR's image won't be used in the game because it will "distort perception of the band's image" is ridiculous. Slash is a huge part of GNR's image and if Axl cares THAT much about changing that, he could start by releasing his own music, making public appearances, and doing band-like things. All of those would work better then filing lawsuits to attempt to discontinue Slash's association with GNR's legacy.Fantstic post. I agree with every word.goes deeper than that,Vivaldi who purchsed.Activision/Blizzard the manufactuers of Rock Star ALso is the parent company of UMG.Vivendi*Thank you,typing too fast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finck6 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 (edited) Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASH Edited July 30, 2012 by finck6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flayer Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHSo this is the thought process... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damn_Smooth Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHThat's what happens when your ability to read doesn't extend much past 3 letters in a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finck6 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHSo this is the thought process...yes, sir. WTTJ is a slash song. not an axl song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flayer Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHSo this is the thought process...yes, sir. WTTJ is a slash song. not an axl songwhat is WTTJ? serious, dude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jakey Styley Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Despite the fact that Slash had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses' ongoing popularity and success since 1996, his association with the band lingers, at least as far as certain member of the media are concerned.This lawsuit is one of the dumbest things Axl has ever pulled.Only if he loses. Pretty smart if he wins if you ask me. I'd take a free $20 million.The lawsuit itself makes sense to file as Activision lied to Axl (as it's claimed) but for Axl to repeatedly email Activision asking and making sure that Slash/VR's image won't be used in the game because it will "distort perception of the band's image" is ridiculous. Slash is a huge part of GNR's image and if Axl cares THAT much about changing that, he could start by releasing his own music, making public appearances, and doing band-like things. All of those would work better then filing lawsuits to attempt to discontinue Slash's association with GNR's legacy.Fantstic post. I agree with every word.goes deeper than that,Vivaldi who purchsed.Activision/Blizzard the manufactuers of Rock Star ALso is the parent company of UMG.What does that change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finck6 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHSo this is the thought process...yes, sir. WTTJ is a slash song. not an axl songwhat is WTTJ? serious, dude.WTTJ is a song slash and duff recorded. which axl still plays on guns n roses world tours. even though, slash and duff are not on tour with 2012 guns n roses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalsh327 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 The question's going to be who made the decision to break the contract with Axl, Tim Riley or the game designers. Tim's just the middleman who connects the two worlds, but has no sort of approval authority or decision making on what songs wind up in a game. Maybe he knew what the game guys were up to, and warned them not to do it. We'll prob. find out more in coming months. Is it frivolous? Maybe. You could look at it as exposing the music to a new generation. It's not like "Guitar Hero: (insert band name)" where the actual band is represented. But if you sign a contract, you expect to hold your end up, and for them to hold theirs up. We all sign stuff that we have no idea what's in the fine print, his lawyers do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!read the lawsuit. read the lawsuit. i red the lawsuit. i conclude WTTJ is SLASHSo this is the thought process...yes, sir. WTTJ is a slash song. not an axl songwhat is WTTJ? serious, dude.WTTJ is a song slash and duff recorded. which axl still plays on guns n roses world tours. even though, slash and duff are not on tour with 2012 guns n rosesBullshit Queenie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Read the whole lawsuit. Axl is right. His are the rights to WTTJ, he can do whatever he wants to do with it. Go for it and sue the hell from those fuckers Axl!!!hell yeah!!axl should be thrilled that people associate slash with gnr. people love slash.I dont,he is evilRight, just cause pappi says so, right? Fucking pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I was being facetious,who is pappi?and who is this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AxlRose14 Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Exactly. Axl's a dumbass. He's biting the hand that feeds, and that's Spash's legacy. axl makes millions off slash every night at every 2012 guns n roses world tour concert. so why can't a video game make millions off slash too?Because Spash bullied Waxl so he went off to cry and tell mommy (the courts).True, but then Slash admitted Waxl was right and he is in fact, a cancer. And a terrible guitar player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 isn't this a really old law suite now?? im pretty sure axl will win as everything to do with original guns n roses is basically owned by himWith the exception of the music and logo's, artwork. That and the fact that no matter how hard he tries, the public will never forget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbo Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 I was being facetious,who is pappi?and who is this Who's pappi? When a 50 year old man is obsessed enough with another 50 year old man to the point where he makes the other's enemies his own enemies, the other's thoughts his own thoughts, the other's favorite tv show his own favorite tv show, and the other's cat his own avatar, I'd say he'd see the other as pappi, Ponder that for a minute, . Take your time replying though, wouldn't wanna upset your stomach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ali Posted July 30, 2012 Share Posted July 30, 2012 Despite the fact that Slash had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses' ongoing popularity and success since 1996, his association with the band lingers, at least as far as certain member of the media are concerned.This lawsuit is one of the dumbest things Axl has ever pulled.Only if he loses. Pretty smart if he wins if you ask me. I'd take a free $20 million.The lawsuit itself makes sense to file as Activision lied to Axl (as it's claimed) but for Axl to repeatedly email Activision asking and making sure that Slash/VR's image won't be used in the game because it will "distort perception of the band's image" is ridiculous. Slash is a huge part of GNR's image and if Axl cares THAT much about changing that, he could start by releasing his own music, making public appearances, and doing band-like things. All of those would work better then filing lawsuits to attempt to discontinue Slash's association with GNR's legacy.Agreed in one sense, but in the other, the point is not discontinue Slash's association with the legacy of GN'R. It's to not imply an association currently exists, when it does not. It's also to not conflate the VR and GN'R brands by having an avatar of Slash playing both VR and GN'R songs.At least, that's what I gathered from reading the suit.Regardless, all that is immaterial to the suit itself. If Activision promised neither Slash nor VR music would be featured in the game and broke that promise, then they opened themselves up to a lawsuit.Ali Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 I was being facetious,who is pappi?and who is this Who's pappi? When a 50 year old man is obsessed enough with another 50 year old man to the point where he makes the other's enemies his own enemies, the other's thoughts his own thoughts, the other's favorite tv show his own favorite tv show, and the other's cat his own avatar, I'd say he'd see the other as pappi, Ponder that for a minute, . Take your time replying though, wouldn't wanna upset your stomach.ponder what? you didnt exactly say anything profound or even enlightening. Is that a picture of your dad.playing on the interewebz in your yard? How sweet!!Since you don't want to talk about the topic,is this another one of your deep,psychological novels?? :takethat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Despite the fact that Slash had nothing to do with Guns N' Roses' ongoing popularity and success since 1996, his association with the band lingers, at least as far as certain member of the media are concerned.This lawsuit is one of the dumbest things Axl has ever pulled.Only if he loses. Pretty smart if he wins if you ask me. I'd take a free $20 million.The lawsuit itself makes sense to file as Activision lied to Axl (as it's claimed) but for Axl to repeatedly email Activision asking and making sure that Slash/VR's image won't be used in the game because it will "distort perception of the band's image" is ridiculous. Slash is a huge part of GNR's image and if Axl cares THAT much about changing that, he could start by releasing his own music, making public appearances, and doing band-like things. All of those would work better then filing lawsuits to attempt to discontinue Slash's association with GNR's legacy.Agreed in one sense, but in the other, the point is not discontinue Slash's association with the legacy of GN'R. It's to not imply an association currently exists, when it does not. It's also to not conflate the VR and GN'R brands by having an avatar of Slash playing both VR and GN'R songs.At least, that's what I gathered from reading the suit.Regardless, all that is immaterial to the suit itself. If Activision promised neither Slash nor VR music would be featured in the game and broke that promise, then they opened themselves up to a lawsuit.AliOn point as usual Ali They (activision/blizzard) clearly and intentionall violated the terms on which they initially agreed on,thus the lawsuit.If it had been deemed frivolous,it would have been dismissed and not allowed to continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetRose Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 Does Slash ever play Welcome To The Jungle live?I mean after reading all that bull shit,it would seem as if Slash has no right to even play it live or whenever the hell he feels like,in the presence of fans/other people....especially if a ticket to the performance was bought.Wouldn't Slash be making money off of the song in that type of situation?Maybe it has to do with Slash is still recognized as Slash and Axl isn't so much recognized as Axl or the way he used to be recognized visually?Who know?Just grow up already! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetRose Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 And if I were Slash,I would make a legal document saying that no one in any future endeavors of GNR can use my image,Meaning no one that is in,or joins GNR could use my likenesses.In other words,no top hat of any kind,no clothing resembling his clothing that was worn during his existence in GNR etc,etc,etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 (edited) And if I were Slash,I would make a legal document saying that no one in any future endeavors of GNR can use my image,Meaning no one that is in,or joins GNR could use my likenesses.In other words,no top hat of any kind,no clothing resembling his clothing that was worn during his existence in GNR etc,etc,etc.He doesnt have a monopoly on the top hat ever heard of Marc Bolan? Not to mention Stevie knicks,Alice Cooper,George Harrison in the movie ".HELP" all wore top hats before slash.And I'm not even mentioning Mr.Peanut,Uncle Sam,and the little man in monopoly. Edited July 31, 2012 by sailaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintari Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 This is all petty imo and as much as I love Axl, he really needs to realize that we have no control over things like this. Usually, people of his age have gotten to the point where they realize just how little control we truly have in this life and move past things of this nature. I know he's hurt, and bitter/angry over the things Slash said, and he has all the right to be. But to continue on for the rest of his life, filing lawsuit after lawsuit and carrying on like this, to me, is a waste of time/energy. If this is truly a "divorce", as he says it is, then it's time to move on. He needs to forget the old band, make new music and reinvent himself and the name Guns N Roses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 This is all petty imo and as much as I love Axl, he really needs to realize that we have no control over things like this. Usually, people of his age have gotten to the point where they realize just how little control we truly have in this life and move past things of this nature. I know he's hurt, and bitter/angry over the things Slash said, and he has all the right to be. But to continue on for the rest of his life, filing lawsuit after lawsuit and carrying on like this, to me, is a waste of time/energy. If this is truly a "divorce", as he says it is, then it's time to move on. He needs to forget the old band, make new music and reinvent himself and the name Guns N Roses.Nintari,no hostility here,but if you made a legal business contract with a company and they arbeitrarily broke said contract,you wouldnt pursue it legally? I certainly would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweetRose Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 And if I were Slash,I would make a legal document saying that no one in any future endeavors of GNR can use my image,Meaning no one that is in,or joins GNR could use my likenesses.In other words,no top hat of any kind,no clothing resembling his clothing that was worn during his existence in GNR etc,etc,etc.He doesnt have a monopoly on the top hat ever heard of Marc Bolan? Not to mention Stevie knicks,Alice Cooper,George Harrison in the movie ".HELP" all wore top hats before slash.And I'm not even mentioning Mr.Peanut,Uncle Sam,and the little man in monopoly. Couldn't he do so though if he copyrighted his image?People have put copyrights on stuff more stupid than that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted July 31, 2012 Share Posted July 31, 2012 This is all petty imo and as much as I love Axl, he really needs to realize that we have no control over things like this. Usually, people of his age have gotten to the point where they realize just how little control we truly have in this life and move past things of this nature. I know he's hurt, and bitter/angry over the things Slash said, and he has all the right to be. But to continue on for the rest of his life, filing lawsuit after lawsuit and carrying on like this, to me, is a waste of time/energy. If this is truly a "divorce", as he says it is, then it's time to move on. He needs to forget the old band, make new music and reinvent himself and the name Guns N Roses.Nintari,no hostility here,but if you made a legal business contract with a company and they arbeitrarily broke said contract,you wouldnt pursue it legally? I certainly would.I think his point was, why waste time putting it into the contract to begin with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts