Jump to content

Guitar Hero Lawsuit permitted - hearing date January 23, 2012


seely

Recommended Posts

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.

Slash makes a ton of money off the Guns N' Roses name. You don't see Axl trying to make money off Slash.

No, he just does ca$h grab tours which main attraction (actually makes people show up) are the old classic songs that Slash's guitar had a HUGE part in making famous...

I wouldn't really care, but some of you people actually act as if Axl has moved on to some amazing new modern band that transcends/exceeds the past.....when in fact the whole thing is funded almost exclusively on the old band's hard work and accomplishments.

Who knows, maybe Axl actually does have a chance at winning this case, but it's just another example of cutting off your nose to spite your face...perception is a powerful thing and once again Axl comes off as bitter and fueled by past grudges, which is odd for a guy who really wants to convince others that he has moved on and will never go back. If that was so important to him..why would he even grant his permission to use the song in the first place if he knew Slash was going to appear in the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

There are actually two different Guns N' Roses': The pre-96 partnership, and the new band that Axl was allowed to create called "Guns N' Roses" that exist concurrently. Look at any Appetite for Destruction CD, it will never say "former Guns N' Roses" guitarist Slash. The songs on the Guitar Hero game were from the original Guns N' Roses and not from Chinese Democracy. If Slash were covering "This I Love" then it would be a different story. Your analogy is bit simple. Slash wasn't a company driver using the company car. He owned the company and the car to this day Duff and Slash still control parts of Guns N' Roses more than just royalties.

Edited by c4liforni4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

'Use the song, but no imagery past or present to go with it. Which is fair.'

That's the whole point of the game, Music + Artist, in this case, Guitar Hero! = Slash.

I think Axl had this planned from the start.

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.

'You don't see Axl trying to make money off Slash'

He's been paying cover guitarists to cover Slash guitar work for the past 10 years to promote his new album :D

Edited by star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :lol:

Slash has crossed no line it has nothing to do with him. By the time the lawyers get done they will have almost all of the $20 mill. Maybe Axl Ro$e should give what is left to his favorite charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised this wasn't settled already. I could foresee plenty of people on the witness stand answering embarrassing questions. I really don't think Axl stands a chance but the lawyers would make plenty of money. "For the betterment of evils and your ways around the laws"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm really surprised this wasn't settled already. I could foresee plenty of people on the witness stand answering embarrassing questions. I really don't think Axl stands a chance but the lawyers would make plenty of money. "For the betterment of evils and your ways around the laws"

They will ask: Why wait so long before making a claim ;)

'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'

Do charactertures count? as I'm not aware the game GHIII contains an actual image of Slash.

Sure it looks a bit like Slash. Even the box art don't contain an actuall image of Slash, only a computer generated characterture of Slash :D

Edited by star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only leg Axl has to stand on here is the fact that Slash is associated with the first performance of WTTJ in the game. The idea that they breached the contract by having Slash on the front cover is hilarious.

Assuming that's what Axl wanted, for the game to contain Welcome to the Jungle, but not featuring Slash. What artist did he want to represent the song during the game?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only leg Axl has to stand on here is the fact that Slash is associated with the first performance of WTTJ in the game. The idea that they breached the contract by having Slash on the front cover is hilarious.

Assuming that's what Axl wanted, for the game to contain Welcome to the Jungle, but not featuring Slash. What artist did he want to represent the song during the game?

No one :shrugs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only leg Axl has to stand on here is the fact that Slash is associated with the first performance of WTTJ in the game. The idea that they breached the contract by having Slash on the front cover is hilarious.

Assuming that's what Axl wanted, for the game to contain Welcome to the Jungle, but not featuring Slash. What artist did he want to represent the song during the game?

No one :shrugs:

So in effect, he said you can use the song, but not really :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'This lawsuit is about protecting Guns N' Roses and 'Welcome to the Jungle'

Protecting from what?

He (Axl) said they could use the song. Then he gets all pissed off because Slash, the guitarist who wrote the music appears along side it.

It goes to show just how fucked in the head Axl Rose is. What a cock.

The only one fucking GN'R is Axl himself.

Edited by star
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only leg Axl has to stand on here is the fact that Slash is associated with the first performance of WTTJ in the game. The idea that they breached the contract by having Slash on the front cover is hilarious.

You've seen the actual contract? I wasn't aware it had been made public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Axl sold out when he agreed to have his music in a video game. Now he is suing?!??! LMAO.

Uh, how does that make sense? Why would he not want to be featured in video games? Axl has always done things the way he wants. In 2004, he was the host of a radio station in a GTA game. So hello?? Obviously he likes video games.

Karri, they have a mob mentality,and don't care about truth,or reality,if it were a frivolous case it would not have been scheduled,it would have been thrown out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more about the principles and laws of commerce than anything else, you claim what's your to claim, legally, the legal realities are a lot different from what should make sense, yes, Slash did help to write Jungle and all those cornerstone hits of Gn'R, but he left the fucking band, here's our good friend Lars explaining it for you what it means when sb. leaves the band, for those who don't quite get the concept of leaving a legal entity such as a band (

, enjoy, I did )

and by associating Slash with the trademark that is Gn'R it becomes illegal in the legal realm, the fact that Slash was in Gn'R doesn't really matter anymore in the legal sense, I mean, yeah, it matters to the fans, and I'm pretty sure that Slash being on the cover and WTTJ being in the game, Gn'R probably sold a few more records and made a few fans, especially among the kids who are used to listening to crap that's on MTV or whatever, but still it's promoting smth. that's dead, and with Slash's and Axl's relationship being what it is, I don't see why Axl should just sit there and take it lying down, but I'd say the first grounds for suing would be the matter of principle, at least for me, rather than monetary gain... you don't deserve reaping rewards from something you abandoned a long long time ago

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only leg Axl has to stand on here is the fact that Slash is associated with the first performance of WTTJ in the game. The idea that they breached the contract by having Slash on the front cover is hilarious.

Assuming that's what Axl wanted, for the game to contain Welcome to the Jungle, but not featuring Slash. What artist did he want to represent the song during the game?

No one :shrugs:

So in effect, he said you can use the song, but not really :D

Remember that it wasn't the standard to have the avatar of a real musician representing your song, in Guitar Hero 3. In fact there were only 3 characters in the game that were real people: Slash, Bret Michaels :rofl-lol:, and Tom Morello.

So had all went as Axl wanted, you would have had some fictional character bearing no resemblance to Slash playing guitar on WTTJ, instead of Slash.

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...