Guitar Hero Lawsuit permitted - hearing date January 23, 2012

[seely]

http://www.torontosun.com/entertainment/music/2011/03/11/17577831-wenn-story.html

A judge in Los Angeles has given Guns N' Roses frontman Axl Rose permission to move forward with his lawsuit against the manufacturers of the popular Guitar Hero video game series.

The singer filed a $20 million lawsuit against bosses at Activision Blizzard last year, alleging they reneged on the terms of a deal to include a Guns N' Roses song in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock.

Rose claims he only let Welcome To The Jungle be included in the game if Activision bosses agreed not to team it with any images of the band's former guitarist, Slash.

The rocker has filed suit over allegations company executives broke that promise by featuring "an animated depiction of Slash" on the cover of the game.

The case went to court on Thursday and after a brief hearing, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles Palmer agreed the lawsuit can proceed and scheduled the trial for January 23, 2012

[Steamboat]

What colour suit will he wear?

What colour suit will he wear?

[Andrew07]

good news i guess, but what ever happened with the lawsuit against azoff and that jazz

[seely]

good news i guess, but what ever happened with the lawsuit against azoff and that jazz

I think that's being heard in April

[cancerface]

well, at least they didn't put slash on the cover of the chinese democracy edition of guitar hero.

[SunnyDRE]

so i guess this means the 'band' won't be doing anything on the touring or recording front until next year at the earliest.

Edited March 11, 2011 by SunnyDRE

[seely]

so i guess this means the 'band' won't doing anything on the touring or recording front until next year at the earliest.

Why do you think that?

Most of the work is ultimately handled by the lawyers....not to mention the band did an extensive tour last year, even after the Azoff countersuit was filed in May

[Ana_1991]

At least we have "some" news...

[SunnyDRE]

so i guess this means the 'band' won't doing anything on the touring or recording front until next year at the earliest.

Why do you think that?

Most of the work is ultimately handled by the lawyers....not to mention the band did an extensive tour last year, even after the Azoff countersuit was filed in May

axl is a pretty 'hands on' type of guy.

[bacardimayne]

so i guess this means the 'band' won't doing anything on the touring or recording front until next year at the earliest.

of all the reasons to believe that, this is probably the dumbest one

[wkuk04]

This makes Axl look awesome, especially when new fans are deciding which rock band they will follow.

[Mal'Akh]

Of course Axl had a case, I don't see how anyone couldn't see that!

Axl: "OK, you can use Welcome To The Jungle TO PROMOTE the game, not on it. And, I don't want Slash on it, no mention of Slash or Velvet Revolver".

Activision: "Ok!"

THAT'S IT! It doesn't matter if you think Axl is stupid for doing that, and you don't agree with his attitude, all that matters is that they made that deal, and Activision did ALL they couldn't have done.

[sweetness]

ugh i forgot about this, Axl is such a baby

[moreblack]

This makes Axl look awesome, especially when new fans are deciding which rock band they will follow.

Exactly this will teach Activision and $la$h not to cross the line. This 20 million will sure help get production going on the next album

because permitting a lawsuit means the suing party automatically wins, right?

[Guest NewGNRnOldGNR]

My issue is with how Axl is going to prove there was a verbal agreement in place in which Activision reps accepted Rose's request that the GN'R edition of “Welcome To The Jungle” not be associated with former members of the band in the game. I think it's also cool that Axl essentialized the “new” incarnation of GN'R not be associated with “Jungle” in Guitar Hero III either (whilst he may hold some degree of opposition towards the old guys, the reality is he recognizes their stake in the history of Guns N' Roses).

Edited March 11, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR

[Mal'Akh]

I don't see why it's hard to understand. Axl and Activision made a deal. Activision broke that deal. Axl sues them.

Shut up you haters, because you're not only wrong, you would have done the same.

Edited March 11, 2011 by Mal'Akh

[moreblack]

This makes Axl look awesome, especially when new fans are deciding which rock band they will follow.

Exactly this will teach Activision and $la$h not to cross the line. This 20 million will sure help get production going on the next album

because permitting a lawsuit means the suing party automatically wins, right?

No but HE HAS A CASE which all you haters laughed and denied.

But you's counting the 20 mil as being in his pocket already.

[star]

with any luck they might involve Slash.

Slash could take to the stand and simply say "I wrote the guitar work for the song, and I am happy for the song to appear during a game that features me" - "I gave the go ahead"

This is one case I hope Axl looses

Of course Axl had a case, I don't see how anyone couldn't see that!

Axl: "OK, you can use Welcome To The Jungle TO PROMOTE the game, not on it. And, I don't want Slash on it, no mention of Slash or Velvet Revolver".

Activision: "Ok!"

THAT'S IT! It doesn't matter if you think Axl is stupid for doing that, and you don't agree with his attitude, all that matters is that they made that deal, and Activision did ALL they couldn't have done.

Rose claims he only let Welcome To The Jungle be included in the game if Activision bosses agreed not to team it with any images of the band's former guitarist, Slash.

I read that as:

Axl gave the thumbs up to use the song.

The song must not be teamed with guitarist Slash - guess that goes to show how bitter William is

That sounds total ass. Why give permison to use a song, but not allow the guitarist behind the song appear on screen at the same time? - this is after all what GHIII is all about. I think Axl will be laughed at

Edited March 11, 2011 by star

[Mal'Akh]

HAHAHA IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! It doesn't amtter what you think about the agreement, the thing is, THERE WAS A DEAL, and Activision did not respect it.

[tange]

HAHAHA IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! It doesn't amtter what you think about the agreement, the thing is, THERE WAS A DEAL, and Activision did not respect it.

Activision knew that the suit wouldn't be as much as the units sold because of it.

People remember GNR songs

+

They see Slash everyday cause he loves the camera.

= Activision wanted that combo to sell more units. Its quite obvious.

[star]

HAHAHA IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! It doesn't amtter what you think about the agreement, the thing is, THERE WAS A DEAL, and Activision did not respect it.

Its an ass deal. Lets hope the judge see's it that way.

It makes sense when an artist is not happy when they are shown playing someone else's music, which is possible during GHIII. But moaning because an artist is shown playing there own music is plain fucking stupid, deal or no deal.

Edited March 11, 2011 by star

[Mindray08]

The song must not be teamed with guitarist Slash - guess that goes to show how bitter William is

oh it's so cool to call him william, grow up.

[Chris 55]

ugh i forgot about this, Axl is such a baby

Well, at least he can be active in lawsuits rather than writing music with his band

[Bards]

People are aware that just because the lawsuit is able to be heard, that doesn't mean Axl wins, right? I don't have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but the people that are claiming vindication for Axl don't understand the legal system.

[kyrie]

HAHAHA IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU THINK! It doesn't amtter what you think about the agreement, the thing is, THERE WAS A DEAL, and Activision did not respect it.

Its an ass deal. Lets hope the judge see's it that way.

It makes sense when an artist is not happy when they are shown playing someone else's music, which is possible during GHIII. But moaning because an artist is shown playing there own music is plain fucking stupid, deal or no deal.

Actually the original poster was right - it really doesn't matter what you think. A broken contract is a broken contract (agreement, deal, whatever you wish to call it).

Further, this isn't all about Slash in the end. It's not like Axl said "take out Slash and put in the new band."

It was: no one's going to be in the game associated with the song. Use the song, but no imagery past or present to go with it. Which is fair. The media continues to call Slash "Guns N' Roses Guitarist" 9 times out of 10, forgetting the word "Former." It's perfectly understandable that Axl does not want to continue that association, as he owns the rights to the name, the band is active with another lineup, and Slash *chose* to quit the band in 1996.

Imagine, as a business owner, lets say an animation business, Disney. And you have this great artist, and he leaves, goes to Dreamworks, but he's still getting his name out in conjunction with Disney. Now, it's one thing to be paid royalties for past work, but it's another to get a new cheque for promoting a new product that uses that past work, even if you were part of that team originally. It makes it look like said artist is still with Disney, and all the while you're like "he doesn't work here anymore."

This would be so much different if Axl said "fuck Slash put me in the game" or Richard or Ron or Finck or Bucket or DJ (ok the long list of guitarists is amusing, should I add Gilby?) - but he didn't.

Slash makes a ton of money off the Guns N' Roses name. You don't see Axl trying to make money off Slash. I see people complain about how "People think Slash is still in the band, they show up at shows and expect him" - those accusations have been made on this forum. Yet when Axl tries to do what he can to make it clear that the association with Slash is long over, people get mad at him.

It's pretty clear that most of the people here have chosen sides, and those sides are *not* based on the reality of this lawsuit, which is that Activision, if it violated the agreement, was wrong to do so, whatever you think of that agreement.