Jump to content

"Axl Rose Suing Guitar Hero Makers".


Chinese Destruction

Recommended Posts

Makes him seem desperate,broke, and like he came up with the wttj riff actual song arrangements. Fair play if he's in the right, but could turn out to bite him in his huge ass.

None of that matters, he OWNS the rights to the name and what it is used for. Slash signed that over remember that! He is absolutely in his rights to go after this.

anyone who thinks he is broke is crazy, they have been touring for a year remember.

Your correct, but seems like a alot of hassle. Prefer him to be in Studio than in court in a green suit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 486
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

i guess axl can have an issue in that his voice is in the game and the track now that i think of it, just as slash can be pissed when axl puts his guitar work in movies/media/ even the concerts. he still should not be suing though.

Sure then what should he do? Nothing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fuck you axl and everyone on his balls. as much as i love axl and his talent i cant defend how big of an asshole he is. just because slash left the band doesnt mean he should leave behind all of HIS music. its HIS as it is also axl's. i honestly think axl thinks he is the only thing that has ever mattered in GNR throughout history. like it or not appetite, lies, UYI, and chidem had many, many writers and contributers other than him. who cares if slash wanted to use it for money? he helped write the damn thing. if axl can put songs in movies and games then slash should too. legally axl might be "right," morally hes a complete prick. and to do this years after the fact? what the hell? just my 2 cents.

Axl's NOT suing Slash!

If agreements on how the song would be used were made between Axl and Activision beforehand -- and then Activision breaches the contract. Axl's in every right to sue them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read it. Seems a waste of time to me.

I find it interesting that Axl would only license the song if activision did not include any images of NU-Guns and old Guns.

That doesn't seem to fit with the argument about wanting to create a brand identity for Nu-Guns.

using images of new Guns while Slash is all over every box and advert? I can totally see how that could be an issue you don't?

By that ratio Slashs name had to be deleted off the old records like appetite or UYI because it could mislead people to think hes in the actual band. That's a little bit strange isn't it after all he partly wrote the songs and put a lot of work into it. If people can seperate the old band from the new when they buy old records that have slashs name an pics all over it I surely think they can even seperate that hes not in the band when a classic song with his imagery is released as a game. as long as the royalites are split on each one i think theres nothing axl can complain about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read it. Seems a waste of time to me.

I find it interesting that Axl would only license the song if activision did not include any images of NU-Guns and old Guns.

That doesn't seem to fit with the argument about wanting to create a brand identity for Nu-Guns.

using images of new Guns while Slash is all over every box and advert? I can totally see how that could be an issue you don't?

By that ratio Slashs name had to be deleted off the old records like appetite or UYI because it could mislead people to think hes in the actual band. That's a little bit strange isn't it after all he partly wrote the songs and put a lot of work into it. If people can seperate the old band from the new when they buy old records that have slashs name an pics all over it I surely think they can even seperate that hes not in the band when a classic song with his imagery is released as a game. as long as the royalites are split on each one i think theres nothing axl can complain about.

that is not how things work though....

by that logic best buy could have erected huge posters of the old band to sell CD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just read it. Seems a waste of time to me.

I find it interesting that Axl would only license the song if activision did not include any images of NU-Guns and old Guns.

That doesn't seem to fit with the argument about wanting to create a brand identity for Nu-Guns.

using images of new Guns while Slash is all over every box and advert? I can totally see how that could be an issue you don't?

By that ratio Slashs name had to be deleted off the old records like appetite or UYI because it could mislead people to think hes in the actual band. That's a little bit strange isn't it after all he partly wrote the songs and put a lot of work into it. If people can seperate the old band from the new when they buy old records that have slashs name an pics all over it I surely think they can even seperate that hes not in the band when a classic song with his imagery is released as a game. as long as the royalites are split on each one i think theres nothing axl can complain about.

that is not how things work though....

by that logic best buy could have erected huge posters of the old band to sell CD

no they couldnt because slahs didnt participate in CD in any way this wold clearly misleading. He participated in GNR during WTTJ and appetite and so he can be connected with it. Otherwise he needs to be removed from the original records which I would advice axl to go for if he wins the lawsuit. (which i believe he wont)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why Axl didn't want pictures of slash. I can't understand why he didn't want images of the new band.

As the majority owner of brand GN'R Axl's entitled to oppose (in terms of GN'R) whatever he so wishes. He required that no Slash related imagery, previous GN'R incarnation imagery, or indeed present GN'R incarnation imagery be used if Guitar Hero wished to incorporate his brand's signature song in their franchise (was it really that difficult an agreement to uphold?). He obviously has his reasoning for making such a requirement.

If I was in Axl's position I'd oppose Slash imagery because it furthers the warped perception of what presently is Guns N' Roses. Slash's association with GN'R ended in 1996 therefore why (nearly two line-ups later) should a video game depicting a GN'R song involve a Slash avatar? I would also oppose present Guns N' Roses imagery being used because I have a sense of integrity and therefore am mature enough to understand that Jungle was written and recorded by a different band and that confusing Jungle with the new band would only undermine the project I'm trying to develop. I can't imagine I'm too far off Axl's thought process really.

Edited by Chinese Destruction
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why Axl didn't want pictures of slash. I can't understand why he didn't want images of the new band.

As the majority owner of “brand GN'R” Axl's entitled to oppose (in terms of GN'R) whatever he so wishes. He required that no “Slash related imagery, previous GN'R incarnation imagery, or indeed present GN'R incarnation imagery” be used if Guitar Hero wished to incorporate his brand's signature song in their franchise (was it really that difficult an agreement to uphold?). He obviously has his reasoning for making such a requirement.

If I was in Axl's position I'd oppose Slash imagery because it furthers the warped perception of what presently is Guns N' Roses. Slash's association with GN'R ended in 1996 therefore why (nearly two line-ups later) should a video game depicting a GN'R song involve a Slash avatar? I would also oppose present Guns N' Roses imagery being used because I have a sense of integrity and therefore am mature enough to understand that “Jungle” was written and recorded by a different band and that confusing “Jungle” with the new band would only undermine the project I'm trying to develop. I can't imagine I'm too far off Axl's thought process really.

But laws overrule contracts and agreements. this sort of agreement harms slashs right as part owner of the song. thats why hes rightfully seen on the cover. as well as hes rightfully on the liner notes of the old records. He's part owner of these songs. who else if not him should be seen on it? Fink?, Fortus? Now that would be misleading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.

How do any of you know Activision breached the contract? Have you read it? You guys do realize a lawsuit is usually the last course of action, right?

Something tells me that the boys at Activision, think they might be ok.

Then why did one of the big cheeses at Activision cry in front of Axl because he felt so bad about how they treated him? It's in the lawsuit and I doubt they would throw in something like that considering they state it happened in a public place (after the Rose Bar performance) if it was a lie.

I think Axl knows he has a case, I don't see him throwing money into something where he knows the other party can just as easily rip him apart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious.

How do any of you know Activision breached the contract? Have you read it? You guys do realize a lawsuit is usually the last course of action, right?

Something tells me that the boys at Activision, think they might be ok.

sure they do cause 20 mill aint fuck all really, how manyunits of that game was sold?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand why Axl didn't want pictures of slash. I can't understand why he didn't want images of the new band.

As the majority owner of “brand GN'R” Axl's entitled to oppose (in terms of GN'R) whatever he so wishes. He required that no “Slash related imagery, previous GN'R incarnation imagery, or indeed present GN'R incarnation imagery” be used if Guitar Hero wished to incorporate his brand's signature song in their franchise (was it really that difficult an agreement to uphold?). He obviously has his reasoning for making such a requirement.

If I was in Axl's position I'd oppose Slash imagery because it furthers the warped perception of what presently is Guns N' Roses. Slash's association with GN'R ended in 1996 therefore why (nearly two line-ups later) should a video game depicting a GN'R song involve a Slash avatar? I would also oppose present Guns N' Roses imagery being used because I have a sense of integrity and therefore am mature enough to understand that “Jungle” was written and recorded by a different band and that confusing “Jungle” with the new band would only undermine the project I'm trying to develop. I can't imagine I'm too far off Axl's thought process really.

But laws overrule contracts and agreements. this sort of agreement harms slashs right as part owner of the song. thats why hes rightfully seen on the cover. as well as hes rightfully on the liner notes of the old records. He's part owner of these songs. who else if not him should be seen on it? Fink?, Fortus? Now that would be misleading.

That was part of the agreement on use of the song. Neither old or new members should feature in association with the song. A generic avatar would have been the proper way.

Axl's not going to promote the original studio version of WTTJ with the likeness of a new band member in a release of any medium. He's not that stupid.

The problem is Slash being portraid as the Guns N' Roses guitarist in a new release in 2007. No one is denying he was part of making the song.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of Axl nut-swinging by 2 people here in this thread in particular is absolutely insane... Seriously that kind of fan devotion and defense is downright scary..

Funny how all of Axl's bitching about litigation that he seems more then willing to want to go after this. Not to mention the Irving Azoff case, and the Dr Pepper thing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of Axl nut-swinging by 2 people here in this thread in particular is absolutely insane... Seriously that kind of fan devotion and defense is downright scary..

Funny how all of Axl's bitching about litigation that he seems more then willing to want to go after this. Not to mention the Irving Azoff case, and the Dr Pepper thing...

so if you own something anyone can use it for profit? Ok cool!

I aint swinging myself I see the mans point, I also now see why he is so careful with the band name and imagery. At the end of the day though I don't care much really it is a battle fought between lawyers about something that does not involve me except for the fact that this likely destroys any chance of a cool game with the current line up :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The amount of Axl nut-swinging by 2 people here in this thread in particular is absolutely insane... Seriously that kind of fan devotion and defense is downright scary..

Funny how all of Axl's bitching about litigation that he seems more then willing to want to go after this. Not to mention the Irving Azoff case, and the Dr Pepper thing...

so if you own something anyone can use it for profit? Ok cool!

I aint swinging myself I see the mans point, I also now see why he is so careful with the band name and imagery. At the end of the day though I don't care much really it is a battle fought between lawyers about something that does not involve me except for the fact that this likely destroys any chance of a cool game with the current line up :shrugs:

Slash wrote Jungle, along with Axl and some other people. Your making it out to seem as if he stole the song, by being featured on it. HE WROTE THE SONG! Maybe Activison are wrong in some respects, i don't deny that. But you seem to constantly bat away at EVERYTHING anti-Axl. There is a middle ground you know? Cool game with the current line up?? Oh yeh, because that was gonna happen. Just like the Better video and the streamed live shows...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...