Scream of the Butterfly

6 hours ago, Swedish said:

I don’t doubt it for a second, they can own how many firearms they want as far as I’m concerned. However, it’s common knowledge that Axl, Slash and Duff lean democratic. Therefore it’s not hard to imagine them being for further gun regulation, especially Duff since he wrote an entire song about it. This lawsuits is just another proof of that in my opinion.

By the same logic, the fact that they sued a brewery for trademark infringement is proof that they are anti-beer.

They might or might not be in favor of gun regulation, but I don't see anything about this lawsuit that proves it.

She didn't do anything wrong by sharing what happened to her. If anything, it would have been irresponsible to keep it to herself and not warn other people that this could happen.

14 minutes ago, Blackstar said:

But it explicitly says that they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature ("a firearms and weapons retailer), which on top of that expresses certain polarizing views regarding guns (I suppose against gun control).

What it says indicates that the reason they don't want to be associated with a business of this nature is because of the polarizing nature of the gun issue. At any rate, no other reason was given.

7 hours ago, allwaystired said:

“GNR, quite reasonably, does not want to be associated with defendant, a firearms and weapons retailer. Furthermore, defendant espouses political views related to the regulation and control of firearms and weapons on the website that may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers.”

Good on the band for taking a stand based on their views and principles. 

It sounds more like they are trying to avoid taking a stand if the reason they don't want to be associated with this is because it "may be polarizing to many U.S. consumers." In other words, they don't want to risk alienating any consumers by taking a stand one way or the other.

I know it's not the same for everyone, but my experiences with not only vaccines but medicine in general have been almost invariably bad. I've learned the hard way that just because a doctor prescribes you with something doesn't mean that it's actually good for you. At some point you have to cut your losses and "do your own research" when you can't afford any more damage to your health by following the advise of experts. At this point I don't trust the pharma industry much more than I trust the tobacco industry when it comes to lung cancer or the oil industry when it comes to climate change. When there's money to be made, the truth tends to bend.

Maybe it's part of the problem that the level of expertise of many medical practitioners really isn't all that great. It's happened to me occasionally that I knew some medical fact better than the doctor did and the doctor had to use Google (or whatever search engine) to confirm what I was telling them. One time a doctor had never even heard of a disease I had been diagnosed with by another doctor. He had to google it and read out loud what was on his screen, which wasn't of much help because I had of course already googled it myself. It was a disease that supposedly impacts 1 out of 2000 people, so not even extremely rare. Later on I came to the conclusion that I didn't even have the disease so the first doctor was also wrong. My symptoms were most likely caused by medication I was on at the time because they stopped when I stopped taking that medication. And this was just one of many bad experiences that I've had with doctors and medication.

1 hour ago, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Eventually one of these viruses will wipe out the human race and the earth and animals will be okay again.

One can hope.

I was recently sick with this disease for the first time. I got it from a triple-vaccinated person. She had mild symptoms and didn't realize she had covid until she had already infected other people.

I was sick for about three days. The second day was the worst with high fever, headache, sore throat, aches and pains, etc. I could barely stand up and go to the bathroom. It was horrible, but no worse than what I've been through in the past with the flu. I'm still happy with my decision not to get vaccinated. I'm happy with my quick recovery and hopeful that I now have some immunity at least for a while.

With all the guilt-tripping about how you must get vaccinated to protect other people, it's kind of ironic that I got the disease from a triple-vaccinated person whereas I myself managed not to infect anybody else.

I'm sad she's gone. It's sad when people are born and it's sad when they die. Birth is a death sentence.

"Oh life, you should never had begun, but since you did, you should never end."

On 9/7/2022 at 11:16 AM, Karice said:

About objections, Axl rolled his eyes when his Lawyer objected to the question ,"When did you first witness Duff doing drugs?" 🤣 Axl seemed to have been conveying, "NOW you object to a Duff drug question? Where was your objection when I stalled for about two minutes waiting for you to object to the first Duff drug question?" 🤣

 

The way I took it, he was just annoyed with the interruption. I don't think he was having a hard time admitting the drug use of his bandmates or himself. It was common knowledge and he had made references to it on stage and in interviews.

Two pages and most of it off topic. Is this the shortest show thread of all time?

I agree with everyone about the lithos.

1 hour ago, Blackstar said:

Like it says, there are exceptions when a name or title can be exploited for specific commercial purposes, like a brand. In this case, although it's not protected by general copyright law,s it's protected by trademark laws. This is how the name Guns N' Roses has been trademarked (as well as the names of many other bands) and GN'R can sue a company that uses it for its own product, like they did with that brewery a few years ago. Axl, Slash and Duff have all trademarked their own names (Axl was the last one to do it about a couple of years ago).

It's also different when the title is accompanied by a logo which is a trademark and also protected by copyright laws. The phrases Appetite for Destruction, Use Your Illusion and the song titles are not trademarked as such, so anyone can open e.g. a store and call it that or print t-shirts with these words/phrases. However, if they use the logos and artwork as well, like sell "AFD" or "UYI" shirts with the artwork that is copyrighted and owned by GN'R, they can be sued.

I wouldn't say that trademarks are "exceptions" but a different matter altogether. But I think we broadly agree (?)

On 9/13/2022 at 10:33 PM, axlsalinger said:

Mark Kostabi recently responded in the comment section of an article about the UYI painting (assuming it really was him). And what he says makes total sense - unlike Niven, who is entertaining but every time he talks makes Axl's decision look more like the right one. 

https://metalinjection.net/news/axl-rose-apparently-spent-a-lot-of-money-on-the-use-your-illusion-album-art-not-knowing-he-could-have-had-it-for-free

 

Mark Kostabi

1 day ago

Niven is absolutely wrong. My painting, called Use Your Illusion, was not in the public domain. That would be like saying many of Andy Warhol's most valuable paintings are in the public domain because Warhol quoted Da Vinci's Mosa Lisa or other old masters. Warhol transformed the subjects into his own style, cropped, changed colors, repeated in patterns, changed titles, etc. Niven's $75,000 price quote is wrong too and how could he know? It is contractually protected private knowledge and as Niven said, he did not negotiate the deal for Axl. If Axl had used the public domain original from the Renaissance it would have had muted colors, would not have had my signature black-and-white chiaroscuro and sfumato contrasting to the simplified bright serigraph colors in the background. He also could have not used my title: Use Your Illusion (which my brother Paul Kostabi actually provided.) And IMO it would not have sold as much because it would have looked old-fashioned. Axl now owns the copyright to my transformative version of the Raphael detail, so he can sue anyone who copies and sells the Use Your Illusion merchandise. It was a great deal for everyone involved!

Assumably Niven was referring to the original artwork by Raphael when he said the images were public domain, so he wasn't exactly wrong about anything (except maybe the price quote if you believe Kostabi that it wasn't $75,000). I suppose it would be up to the courts to decide whether Kostabi's painting was sufficiently different from the original to warrant for copyright protection on its own right, but that doesn't really relate to what Niven was saying.

As for the title Use Your Illusion, as I said before, titles can't be copyrighted:

https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf

Words and short phrases, such as names, titles, and slogans, are uncopyrightable because they contain
an insufficient amount of authorship. The Office will not register individual words or brief combina-
tions of words, even if the word or short phrase is novel, distinctive, or lends itself to a play on words.
Examples of names, titles, or short phrases that do not contain a sufficient amount of creativity
to support a claim in copyright include

• The name of an individual (including pseudonyms, pen names, or stage names)
• The title or subtitle of a work, such as a book, a song, or a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work
• The name of a business or organization
• The name of a band or performing group
• The name of a product or service
• A domain name or URL
• The name of a character
• Catchwords or catchphrases
• Mottos, slogans, or other short expressions
Under certain circumstances, names, titles, or short phrases may be protectable under federal or
state trademark laws. For information about trademark laws, visit the U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office website or call 1-800-786-9199.

If Kostabi was unwilling to sell at a reasonable price, they could have used a sufficiently different image. Kostabi's only contribution was the colour scheme. They could have used anything they wanted to from The School of Athens. Titles can't be copyrighted, so they could have even used the title Use Your Illusion without having to pay him. Any ensuing lawsuit, I imagine any judge would have thrown out of court.

I'm not a sadist, so the idea that somebody should be kept alive just to make them suffer more for their crime doesn't really appeal to me. There are other arguments against the death penalty that I might agree with, but I'm not categorically for or against. The world would be a better place without some of its inhabitants in it.

Evidently the shows are still enjoyable for people who are there in person. The band and management probably think everything's fine for as long as that remains the case. For us internet warriors, this leg of the tour seems like a borefest, especially without a proper stream.

About the poster, I don't see what is so great about it. The ones for the European tour were so much better. This one's all too typical and boring.

1 hour ago, Karice said:

Question. If Heroin is what Axl was thinking about when thinking about Duff, why did he just  say,"Cocaine and pills," and not say something like,"Heroin, Cocaine, and pills?" 🤔🤨

He was asked about any use of (hard) drugs, so he wasn't necessarily thinking about heroin specifically. Maybe he never witnessed Duff doing heroin, so that's why he didn't mention it.

1 hour ago, action said:

 

during the height of covid, some morons were suggesting painting swastika's on the doors of unvaccinated people

you'd think people stopped being crazy when Hitler was defeated, but make no mistake. the world is full of nazis in sheepcoats

all it takes is a crisis to bring up the worst in people.

Thankfully the most fanatical suggestions didn't materialize at least in most countries. Still, it was eye-opening to see how quickly division lines were drawn based on a single issue. A lesson not to be forgotten in a hurry.

I also think he was about to say Duff but then remembered that Duff did do some drugs. He definitely wasn't about to say Izzy.

Does anybody know whether any footage exists of Slash, Duff or Steven testifying? I've always found Axl's testimony interesting to watch and would like to see more of this trial.

On 8/30/2022 at 10:34 PM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

Not sure bout any other teachers or kids since the schools won't let you know and many parents here are against vaccinations. plenty of morons live here in Texas.

On 9/3/2022 at 10:35 PM, dontdamnmeuyi2015 said:

I just hope my daughter stays well. She isn't old enough to get the booster yet.  Not too many kids wearing masks and we don't know who's vaccinated and who's not?

What good would it do to know the vaccination status of each and every teacher and school kid? What would you do with that information? Assumedly prior to covid you didn't know who had been vaccinated against the flu or measles or any number of other conditions. Did it bother you then?

Admittedly, $75,000 seems rather excessive for a piece of art so heavily based on another artist's work.

Paying Del a six pack is going to the other extreme, but I think I can see Niven's point.

I've grown to dislike the whole practice of keeping pets. I think it should be abolished like slavery. The cute pictures hide the ugly truth that these animals are property at the mercy of their owners. Some pets are supposedly treated well, but even a slave that is treated well is still a slave devoid of autonomy, and it's no consolation for the many that are treated badly. In the end, they shouldn't be ours to treat one way or another.

Maybe there should be an anti-pets thread?

34 minutes ago, EvanG said:

No. Are you, SoulMonster?
Believe it or not, I happen to be 190 cm (6'3) myself and most my male friends, co-workers are my height, give or take a few cms.
The only time I am ever labelled a ''tall guy'' is when I'm abroad. Almost never in my own country. And that makes sense, seeing as so many guys here are around my height. I am not saying 190 cm is short by any means, but tall? Not really. I have a few friends and acquaintances that are 195 and over. They are considered tall for sure. So yeah, I don't know what google says about the average height here, but this is from my experience living here for several decades.

The reason you think it isn't tall is probably specifically because you are 6'3 yourself. People tend to see themselves as the measure of what is normal and average.

Kind of surprising that his height was an issue, considering rockstars must be the shortest people out there after jockeys.

He doesn't look all that fat, either. Think of Dizzy at the time.

8 hours ago, EvanG said:

Depends on where you live, I guess.

I'm pretty certain 6'3 is tall anywhere in the world.

As far as I can tell, Axl's always been open-minded and diverse when it comes to music. In general, I don't think he has changed as much as people think.

19 hours ago, Draguns said:

With that being said, something is up with Axl. He wouldn't be sleeping at the stadium if he was ok with his mental health.

Why not? I don't see how you deduce mental health issues from the mere fact that he slept at the stadium. He didn't specify why he slept there so who knows. I think people are too quick to jump into conclusions.