iftheworld Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 (edited) Well why would he want a Slash character representing GNR when he left the band a decade ago? It seems pretty obvious that Axl did not want Slash overshadowing not only him, but the actual GNR lineup at the time.What's wrong with the lead guitarist, who co-wrote the song with the rest of the band, being in a videogame called "Guitar Hero" which promotes music he himself made?Because helping write a song, and representing a band are two different things. Especially when you haven't had anything to do with GNR for the last 20 years. Why would you want someone who gave up and walked out to represent the band? That wasn't the deal, Activision fucked up. Speaking of Activision fucking up, go play Nascar The Game 2011. Edited June 18, 2011 by iftheworld Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Activision did agree to the terms set forward in order to use the song,and then proceeded to renig on the deal,hope their deceptive asses get reamed.Wheres the link to your facts?I downloaded a copy of the suit at RadarOnline.com,its a pdf file,also if the case were frivolous it would have been thrown out. I don't want Saul to represent GNR either,he quit in 96' and has ruined any respect I previously had for him by his limelight seeking tactics,lying about the 5:30 am visit,talking smack about people he was currently in a band with (Mr.Fraud,Mr.Spineless,and Mr.I hate Matt). He slaughtered a GNR classic (Paradise Shitty) and the sequined Hat performance was an embarrassment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well why would he want a Slash character representing GNR when he left the band a decade ago? It seems pretty obvious that Axl did not want Slash overshadowing not only him, but the actual GNR lineup at the time.What's wrong with the lead guitarist, who co-wrote the song with the rest of the band, being in a videogame called "Guitar Hero" which promotes music he himself made?Because helping write a song, and representing a band are two different things. Especially when you haven't had anything to do with GNR for the last 20 years. Why would you want someone who gave up and walked out to represent the band? That wasn't the deal, Activision fucked up. Speaking of Activision fucking up, go play Nascar The Game 2011.Uh...no I'm not going to go play Nascar 2011. That was out of nowhere. How did Slash not have anything to do with GNR in the last 20 years? The hell are you talking about? It's an iconic song, he helped write it, it's called "Guitar Hero". Don't see the problem. That's my opinion on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest NewGNRnOldGNR Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Pretty stupid "agreement" to begin with. "Jungle" is a GN'R song and Slash is no longer part of Guns N' Roses (the agreement was very sensible given Axl naturally doesn't want confusion in terms of GN'R's present form - which doesn't entail Slash). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Use Your Delusion 1 Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 I really hope Activision burns. They fucked NTG11 up so badly.and Infinity Ward, this company is the Union Carbine of the video games industry (well not quite...), I hope axl wins nice and quick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well why would he want a Slash character representing GNR when he left the band a decade ago? It seems pretty obvious that Axl did not want Slash overshadowing not only him, but the actual GNR lineup at the time.Because Slash represents an Era of GN'R (some say, the most important part) - the Jungle Era.Axl was happy to have Jungle appear during the game, and for the audio from former band members appear during the game. The whole idea of allowing for a song, but not an image is weird, however you look at it, contract or no contract. All GHIII tunes have to have characters representing them, and in the case of Jungle, who else could represent the song during the game? - its not rocket science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 18, 2011 Share Posted June 18, 2011 Well why would he want a Slash character representing GNR when he left the band a decade ago? It seems pretty obvious that Axl did not want Slash overshadowing not only him, but the actual GNR lineup at the time.Because Slash represents an Era of GN'R (some say, the most important part) - the Jungle Era.Axl was happy to have Jungle appear during the game, and for the audio from former band members appear during the game. The whole idea of allowing for a song, but not an image is weird, however you look at it, contract or no contract. All GHIII tunes have to have characters representing them, and in the case of Jungle, who else could represent the song during the game? - its not rocket science.Doesn't change the fact that the use of the song had stipulations,which were violated. That is the basis for the lawsuit,no speculation involved other than if Saul was aware of the conditional use and decided to assist them in dishonouring the contractual obligations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 the fact is activision agreed to the details if they thought the stipulation was fucked they could have said fuck you we arent doing it instead they agree and then go back on there obligations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 the fact is activision agreed to the details if they thought the stipulation was fucked they could have said fuck you we arent doing it instead they agree and then go back on there obligationsyep. That fact has been beaten to death and no one is arguing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I never would have thought back in the 90s that Axl would be suing Activision for using an image of Slash. not in a million years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasted Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 I just don't think Axl wants the image of Slash representing GNR's music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ^ Yeah I know that's the gist of the argument but I mean c'mon in a conversation about Guns someone ask you to name two members of the band and presuming your a person who knows Guns but ain't the fans of fans odds are your answer is gonna be Axl Rose and Slash - ergo Slash is forever associated with the band whether Axl or himself like it or not.Combined with using an old band song that the man is credited as the co-writer of along with Axl, as opposed to a CD song, the whole Slash on the box argument, putting aside the legal intricacies, is pointless and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axl8302 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ^ Yeah I know that's the gist of the argument but I mean c'mon in a conversation about Guns someone ask you to name two members of the band and presuming your a person who knows Guns but ain't the fans of fans odds are your answer is gonna be Axl Rose and Slash - ergo Slash is forever associated with the band whether Axl or himself like it or not.Combined with using an old band song that the man is credited as the co-writer of along with Axl, as opposed to a CD song, the whole Slash on the box argument, putting aside the legal intricacies, is pointless and void.Your argument is pointless, as it is a legal issue, nothing less, nothing more. Stop whining about nothing, you miserable sack of shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ^ Yeah I know that's the gist of the argument but I mean c'mon in a conversation about Guns someone ask you to name two members of the band and presuming your a person who knows Guns but ain't the fans of fans odds are your answer is gonna be Axl Rose and Slash - ergo Slash is forever associated with the band whether Axl or himself like it or not.Combined with using an old band song that the man is credited as the co-writer of along with Axl, as opposed to a CD song, the whole Slash on the box argument, putting aside the legal intricacies, is pointless and void.Your argument is pointless, as it is a legal issue, nothing less, nothing more. Stop whining about nothing, you miserable sack of shit.How did you get so easily confused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to Edited June 19, 2011 by star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 (edited) ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl...and the 'terms of the agreement' were weird.How will a judge view the situation? will he give the thumbs up for Mr Rose to recieve 20 Million dollars because Activision dared to show Slash on screen while the song Jungle plays? - it's not like Activision caused any harm to the GN'R brand, as the song is from another era, the same era as Slash. 20 Million is a lot of cash to be handing out.They might get Slash in to hear his views. Slash must have signed something. Edited June 19, 2011 by star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl...and the 'terms of the agreement' were weird.How will a judge view the situation? will he give the thumbs up for Mr Rose to recieve 20 Million dollars because Activision dared to show Slash on screen while the song Jungle plays? - it's not like Activision caused any harm to the GN'R brand, as the song is from another era, the same era as Slash. 20 Million is a lot of cash to be handing out.They might get Slash in to hear his views. Slash must have signed something.Terms of the agreement were violated,that makes Activision liable,period.Actually I have been wondering how much Saul did know about the conditions set in place,not that I would believe anything he said,might be interesting to hear his story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
star Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl...and the 'terms of the agreement' were weird.How will a judge view the situation? will he give the thumbs up for Mr Rose to recieve 20 Million dollars because Activision dared to show Slash on screen while the song Jungle plays? - it's not like Activision caused any harm to the GN'R brand, as the song is from another era, the same era as Slash. 20 Million is a lot of cash to be handing out.They might get Slash in to hear his views. Slash must have signed something.Terms of the agreement were violated,that makes Activision liable,period.Actually I have been wondering how much Saul did know about the conditions set in place,not that I would believe anything he said,might be interesting to hear his story.Any guitarist in the world would find it odd, having someone say they cannot appear (in image form) fronting their own work. It's absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl...and the 'terms of the agreement' were weird.How will a judge view the situation? will he give the thumbs up for Mr Rose to recieve 20 Million dollars because Activision dared to show Slash on screen while the song Jungle plays? - it's not like Activision caused any harm to the GN'R brand, as the song is from another era, the same era as Slash. 20 Million is a lot of cash to be handing out.They might get Slash in to hear his views. Slash must have signed something.Terms of the agreement were violated,that makes Activision liable,period.Actually I have been wondering how much Saul did know about the conditions set in place,not that I would believe anything he said,might be interesting to hear his story.Kind of obsessed with calling Slash by his real name aren't you? New trend you're trying to start? Call Axl "Bill Bailey" now too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packersnroses Posted June 19, 2011 Share Posted June 19, 2011 Any guitarist in the world would find it odd, having someone say they cannot appear (in image form) fronting their own work. It's absurd.But it's not Slash's work. It's Guns N Roses' work. And Axl owns the name, so obviously Axl isn't going to let a video game use Slash to promote a GNR song when Slash doesn't have ownership in the name and hasn't been with the band in 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axl8302 Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 ^ Yeah I know that's the gist of the argument but I mean c'mon in a conversation about Guns someone ask you to name two members of the band and presuming your a person who knows Guns but ain't the fans of fans odds are your answer is gonna be Axl Rose and Slash - ergo Slash is forever associated with the band whether Axl or himself like it or not.Combined with using an old band song that the man is credited as the co-writer of along with Axl, as opposed to a CD song, the whole Slash on the box argument, putting aside the legal intricacies, is pointless and void.Your argument is pointless, as it is a legal issue, nothing less, nothing more. Stop whining about nothing, you miserable sack of shit.How did you get so easily confused?How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 (edited) ..not wanting a guitarist to front his own work is just plain weird!Maybe Axl is jealous that Slash is bigger than him The 'letter of the law' is all good and well. It would be interesting to hear Axl's defence (in front of Judge) as to why he agreed to what he agreed to No,Saul quit the band in 1996,the GNR name legally belongs to Axl,that said,certain conditions were set forth in order for Activision to use the song.They violated the terms of the agreement,so now they are being sued.He is suing Activision,not Saul,and as far as being "bigger" RIR trumps the superbowl...and the 'terms of the agreement' were weird.How will a judge view the situation? will he give the thumbs up for Mr Rose to recieve 20 Million dollars because Activision dared to show Slash on screen while the song Jungle plays? - it's not like Activision caused any harm to the GN'R brand, as the song is from another era, the same era as Slash. 20 Million is a lot of cash to be handing out.They might get Slash in to hear his views. Slash must have signed something.Terms of the agreement were violated,that makes Activision liable,period.Actually I have been wondering how much Saul did know about the conditions set in place,not that I would believe anything he said,might be interesting to hear his story.Kind of obsessed with calling Slash by his real name aren't you? New trend you're trying to start? Call Axl "Bill Bailey" now too?The difference is that Axl legally had his name changed eons ago,and "bill Bailey" was not his birthname anyway. Legally he is W.Axl Rose,Show me where Saul Hudson has had his name legally changed,and I'll question your validity because it hasn't happened.I can refer to him in much worse terms but I'm being polite.Also,Activision had to agree to the terms set forward in order to use the song,they are in violation of contractual stipulations,Saul is not being sued,Activision is. Edited June 20, 2011 by sailaway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Drama Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Whatever axl8302 you just continue with your delusion that what Axl is doing is actually gonna help his career and image. Ill just sit here and laugh when the insults come in en masse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sailaway Posted June 20, 2011 Share Posted June 20, 2011 Whatever axl8302 you just continue with your delusion that what Axl is doing is actually gonna help his career and image. Ill just sit here and laugh when the insults come in en masse.Saul does not represent GNR,period. Wasn't there an actual GNR logo on the initial release of the game? I will enjoy watching Activision get reamed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts