Jump to content

Axl vs Activision


maximum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 356
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Because of losing, does he have to pay Activision's legal fees as well? I always thought that's how it worked.

Guy's gotta be fuckin' heated.

Since he created the case and forced Activision to defend, should he fail to win, then it is normal to cover the other party's costs. It would be interesting to know how much Activision spent defending themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of losing, does he have to pay Activision's legal fees as well? I always thought that's how it worked.

Guy's gotta be fuckin' heated.

Since he created the case and forced Activision to defend, should he fail to win, then it is normal to cover the other party's costs. It would be interesting to know how much Activision spent defending themselves.

Would cost one las vegas residency at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because of losing, does he have to pay Activision's legal fees as well? I always thought that's how it worked.

Guy's gotta be fuckin' heated.

Since he created the case and forced Activision to defend, should he fail to win, then it is normal to cover the other party's costs. It would be interesting to know how much Activision spent defending themselves.

Would cost one las vegas residency at this point.

..and how did you arrive at that answser ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he goes into the red for 20mil because of this... I don't even know what to say. I guess his war against his trauma with Slash will then go on until the day he dies.

I'd like to know how you figure he could go in the red for 20 million?His lawsuit is for 20 million,it doesn't mean he would owe 20 million if the case is lost. Edited by cbgnr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if he goes into the red for 20mil because of this... I don't even know what to say. I guess his war against his trauma with Slash will then go on until the day he dies.

If he wins he wants 20 mil from Activision and have his legal bills paid.

If he looses, he won't have to pay them anything other than possibly their (Activision) legal bills, which might cost a bit. He also looses face.

The whole situation is odd. *Guitar Hero* * Slash* *Welcome to the Jungle* - Axl agrees, but imposes all sorts of weird stuff. GN'R songs from that era split 5 ways as far as we know. 5 ways to the original GN'R.

Edited by vaida
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This would actually be a good reason why Axl should go on Howard Stern, his lawsuit against Sirius/XM was also dropped because he "had enough money" according to the judge.

Why was a suit filed against Sirius/XM? And, seriously, the judge ruled it that way simply with the reasoning that Axl had enough money? Unbelievable..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Activision has scored a Guitar Hero legal battle, according to a new report atThe San Marino Tribune. A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has dismissed the remains of Guns N' Roses singer Axl Rose's lawsuit against the publisher, which claimed Activision duped him in several ways.

Slash_16756_embed.jpg

Rose sued Activision in 2010 for its use of the virtual likeness of Saul Hudson (better known as the top-hat-donning axe legend Slash) in Guitar Hero III. Rose further alleged that Activision convinced him to lend "Welcome to the Jungle" to Guitar Hero III on the grounds that the game would not feature Slash's likeness or the guitarist's follow-up group, Velvet Revolver.

Slash was featured heavily in Guitar Hero III. He graced the game's cover and was a playable character in the game. Further, songs from Velvet Revolver ("She Builds Quick Machines," "Slither," and "Messages") were made available to gamers as downloadable content following the game's release.

Rose also claimed Activision promised him a band-specific title called Guitar Hero: Guns N' Roses.

An Activision representative was not immediately available to comment.

The high-profile No Doubt vs. Activision Band Hero suit was settled in October. Terms of the deal were not specified, though the settlement came just days before the case was to be heard by a jury.

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...