Axl vs Activision

[star]

^ This aint a debate on whos a slut for fame cuntard. Slash is the most famous member of Guns N' Roses past or present along with Axl Rose. Fact. If you know who the man is, it is impossible to not associate the man with the band in a major way.

out of all the Guns N'Roses members Slash is in the press more than most. Come to think of it, the others including Axl Rose arn't in the press these days. Only yesterday day in a major UK news paper on the music page, there was Slash. They reported on a Twitter post, about Slash creatung spicy food for his kids - it was their b'day or something. They qoute him as Slash - Guns N'Roses. When they don't could him Slash - Guns N'Roses, they call him Ex Guns N'Roses guitarist. Either way, when ever Slash is in the press, Guns N'Roses gets a mention. Slash involuntary keeps the name Guns N'Roses alive.

[Del Norte]

To sailaway, yes, Slash might not represent GN'R or Axl and co. but insinuating that because he left the band ergo he has jackshit to do with the band is ludicrous. He was the second most prolific member, if not the most prolific along with Axl - leaving your job after some good years of service ain't gonna mean that everyone at that old place is gonna forget you, know what I mean?

packersnroses, yes he might not give a shit about his public image, but that's what has made the man lose fans post breakup and it's fucking sad to see a musician you love (especially the lead singer of your favourite band)) lose fans because it's his way or the fucking highway. We all compromise in life, unfortunately for Axl he chooses not to and as a result he has compromised his career (corny, but right).

Second most prolific is debatable,although Izzy doesn't pimp out his work the way Saul does,and doesn't sign onto life under the limelight regardless of quality,I'd consider his contributions very prolific among all the alumni,he wrote some quality material.

This really doesn't need to turn into another vs. thread.

The lawsuit involves Axl and Activision,as far as I see Saul isn't being held liable for allowing Activision to use his image,whether he was aware of the stipulations set forth can only be speculated upon.

If indeed what the lawsuit claims is true,then Activision is liable for violating contractual obligations,I don't see how this is viewed as compromising careerwise,except by the slash disciples.

William Bailey.

[Apollo]

I'm amazed that the slash fanboys are so obsessed with hating Axl that they refuse to use logic in this situation.

It is so simple.

Axl isn't suing Slash.

Out of RESPECT to Slash....and out of RESPECT to the new guitar players............Axl told them they could use the song, as long as they didn't use images of Slash OR of any player from the new band. When the game came out, they reniged on their agreement and used Slash. Why is that so hard for you people to understand?

If Axl would have let them use Bucket or Finck on the game, the slash fan boys would have had 3954 posts on here saying how it was the worst thing that had ever happened to them.

Out of respect to Slash - Axl didn't let them use current member's images.

Out of respect to his current band - Axl didn't let them use images of old band members.

Even when Axl tries to do the right thing - the slash fanboys freak out.

[Spirit]

Duff, Izzy, Slash, Adler have not criticized Activision in any way. Only Axl Rose has been the one to goto great lenghs to wine, and demand ridiculous amounts of cash, at a time there were rumours he was defaulting on payments on paintings, cars etc.

There's a difference here. They're not in Guns N' Roses now. The way things come off looking is Slash being a present member of the band. I can agree that Axl & co could have done some more promotion on who's the present members, but this case certainly didn't help things.

Here's my point of view

1. Axl didn't want Slash as the character playing WTTJ because he's not a present member, and it would be unfair to the new guys.

2. Axl didn't want any of the present members as characters because it would be unfair to the past members (since it's a song written/recorded by the old band).

Is it just me, or doesn't this seem like a fair deal?

[The Wicked Hand]

With all do RESPECT, how do you know Axl isnt suing Slash bc of RESPECT. first of all he would have no case, second he hasnt said anything in the last decade or more that would indicate any hint of respect for Slash.

The way i see it the game is guitar hero and features the song welcome to the jungle, which Slash wrote the GUITAR parts to.

Whats the problem?

If he had RESPECT for Slash he wouldnt care if he was onscreen playing the music he wrote.

Its all very childish and silly, especially since the game came out ages ago.

[Ali]

With all do RESPECT, how do you know Axl isnt suing Slash bc of RESPECT. first of all he would have no case, second he hasnt said anything in the last decade or more that would indicate any hint of respect for Slash.

The way i see it the game is guitar hero and features the song welcome to the jungle, which Slash wrote the GUITAR parts to.

Whats the problem?

If he had RESPECT for Slash he wouldnt care if he was onscreen playing the music he wrote.

Its all very childish and silly, especially since the game came out ages ago.

This isn't about Slash personally, and respect or a lack thereof for him. This is about not confusing and conflating the VR and GN'R brands, as stated in the suit filed. It's about not using Guns N' Roses to promote Velvet Revolver, and implying a current association with Slash and GN'R. Having a Slash avatar play both VR and GN'R songs muddies the waters between Slash/VR and GN'R.

The delay in the lawsuit being filed had to do with Axl entrusting Irving Azoff to handle this. In fact, that was mentioned in Axl's countersuit vs. Azoff.

Also, I saw someone say that Beta was not the most reliable "filter" for the communication from Activision. It wasn't just Beta who heard the promises from Activision. Brent Milligan from Sussman & Associates, who handle GN'R's licensing, also had contact with Activision regarding this issue.

Ali

[FCBarcelona]

Because so many textbook definition "glib" conclusions in the other thread I think it be best I bump this thread. At end of the day, Axl will most definitely lose.

-Pep

[The Wicked Hand]

I havent read the suit, i was just commenting on what Grogan said.

It is all kind of ridiculous in my opinion.

I guess thats what happens when youve had five or so different lead guitarist.

The general public is easily confused.

I do think Axl has a case if it was stated in writing that Slash wont apear on the cover.

[bigcountry]

With activision quiting the Guitar Hero line in the near future as far as making new ones due to poor sales of previous editions. There maybe one more new edition of GH not for sure on that though but they are putting the game to rest this year sometime.

No doubt GH III made them a ton of money but since then they have lost money on the GH line of games and they may not be as eager to cough up the cash to Axl as some may think.

I know the suit is over GH III but with the GH line tanking it maybe harder to get a good settlement.

But what do I know?????

[Guest NewGNRnOldGNR]

The key issue is that Activison, whether inadvertently or intentionally, perpetuated the illegitimate notion Slash is somehow representative of Guns N’ Roses (despite Slash legally terminating his association with GN’R eleven years prior to the release of the game in question).

[The Wicked Hand]

Of course they intentionally did it, which leads me to believe that it wasnt in writing. I could be wrong , like i said, i havent read the suit. But who would intentionally breech contract with a sue happy gnr legal team.

[Guest NewGNRnOldGNR]

The funny thing is a really seemingly “insignificant” factor is going to give Axl’s argument considerably more weight (the GN’R “bullet logo” being packaged as part of the game release is legally unacceptable presuming it isn’t copyrighted to Slash).

Edited June 23, 2011 by NewGNRnOldGNR

[Ali]

Of course they intentionally did it, which leads me to believe that it wasnt in writing. I could be wrong , like i said, i havent read the suit. But who would intentionally breech contract with a sue happy gnr legal team.

It doesn't HAVE to be in writing to be legally binding. If Brent Milligan, Beta and Axl all testify that they were told Slash's likeness and/or VR music would not be used in the game, that makes for a stronger case than if just one person said that. Additionally, if there were witnesses who can testify that they saw Tim Riley apologize to Axl, then that shows consciousness of guilt.

Ali

[axl8302]

Has anyone actually seen the agreement between Activision and Axl/his handlers? I've read the suit and it seems a lot of what he's alleging Activision breached came through "conversations", which will just lead to a "he said, she said" situation in court. Also, some of those conversations came through Beta, who I don't think is the most reliable filter.

The presence of VR songs as additional downloadable content released after the game hit shelves may violate the spirit of the agreement but not not the actual agreement itself, depending of course on the wording.

hmmm.. that's interesting...

Activision used Slash, as Slash is a guitar hero - the whole purpose of the video game.

The songs they decided to use were songs Slash as had input into, obviously.

Axl gave permission to use Welcome to the Jungle - Activison used Welcome to the Jungle

Any song that happend to be a Slash Era Guns N'Roses song - I'm sure all band members from that era would have been paid paid accordingly.

Duff, Izzy, Slash, Adler have not criticized Activision in any way. Only Axl Rose has been the one to goto great lenghs to wine, and demand ridiculous amounts of cash, at a time there were rumours he was defaulting on payments on paintings, cars etc.

Why would Duff, Izzy, Slash and Adler criticize Activision? They didn't license the song to them and had nothing to do with the deal. You keep missing the point, probably on purpose.

[wasted]

did anyone play Pitfall. I used to sneak into Big K to play Activision's console.

[The Wicked Hand]

Perhaps,

but sounds like he said she said to me. Im not claiming to know the ins n outs of a case like this. Its all pretty fuckin stupid. To bad were debating this rather than what rocks harder soul monster or checkmate, eh?

Im a rookie to the whole internet waitin, debatin, and speculatin forum thing, but i really wish Axl would come through this time and deliver on an EPIC level.

Heres to that fukers!

[iftheworld]

I'll never forgive Activision for "Nascar The Game 11".

[Bards]

Of course they intentionally did it, which leads me to believe that it wasnt in writing. I could be wrong , like i said, i havent read the suit. But who would intentionally breech contract with a sue happy gnr legal team.

It doesn't HAVE to be in writing to be legally binding. If Brent Milligan, Beta and Axl all testify that they were told Slash's likeness and/or VR music would not be used in the game, that makes for a stronger case than if just one person said that. Additionally, if there were witnesses who can testify that they saw Tim Riley apologize to Axl, then that shows consciousness of guilt.

Ali

Likewise, if 3 or 4 activision execs testify no offer like that was given, we're back to he said she said. I really doubt the Riley thing happened just because it sounds so ridiculous that it's hard to take at face value. The suit says: "In tears, he apologized for the way in which Rose and Guns N' Roses had been mistreated by Activision. He said 'I can't sleep at night' and asked Rose to forgive him." Riley's painted by the Rose camp as this conniving, vile exec through the whole suit but then the second he sees Axl he doesn't ignore him or book out; instead he races over "in tears" offering a blubbery over-the-top (even by hollywood standards) apology? The whole situation just doesn't add up.

Also, I'm wondering how much sense it really makes for Activision to go to such great lengths to deceive Axl just for the purposes of using Jungle in the game. I mean it's a cool song and it was fun to play in the game, but ultimately if the rights weren't given and 'Slither' or something was used instead (as it was in the ads) I don't think it would have made much if any of an impact on sales. There's still a shit-ton of other cool songs on GH3 that people would have been excited about. Why go to such great lengths to fuck Axl over just to use one song?

I don't even really have a dog in the fight. If Activision did make the agreement with Axl that he's alleging and then broke it, then they're in the wrong and they'll be paying for it. But there's a lot of weird things in the suit.

Oh, and Ali I was the one who said I don't think Beta is a reliable filter. I wasn't speaking just about this, I was also speaking in general.

[Ali]

Of course they intentionally did it, which leads me to believe that it wasnt in writing. I could be wrong , like i said, i havent read the suit. But who would intentionally breech contract with a sue happy gnr legal team.

It doesn't HAVE to be in writing to be legally binding. If Brent Milligan, Beta and Axl all testify that they were told Slash's likeness and/or VR music would not be used in the game, that makes for a stronger case than if just one person said that. Additionally, if there were witnesses who can testify that they saw Tim Riley apologize to Axl, then that shows consciousness of guilt.

Ali

Likewise, if 3 or 4 activision execs testify no offer like that was given, we're back to he said she said. I really doubt the Riley thing happened just because it sounds so ridiculous that it's hard to take at face value. The suit says: "In tears, he apologized for the way in which Rose and Guns N' Roses had been mistreated by Activision. He said 'I can't sleep at night' and asked Rose to forgive him." Riley's painted by the Rose camp as this conniving, vile exec through the whole suit but then the second he sees Axl he doesn't ignore him or book out; instead he races over "in tears" offering a blubbery over-the-top (even by hollywood standards) apology? The whole situation just doesn't add up.

Also, I'm wondering how much sense it really makes for Activision to go to such great lengths to deceive Axl just for the purposes of using Jungle in the game. I mean it's a cool song and it was fun to play in the game, but ultimately if the rights weren't given and 'Slither' or something was used instead (as it was in the ads) I don't think it would have made much if any of an impact on sales. There's still a shit-ton of other cool songs on GH3 that people would have been excited about. Why go to such great lengths to fuck Axl over just to use one song?

I don't even really have a dog in the fight. If Activision did make the agreement with Axl that he's alleging and then broke it, then they're in the wrong and they'll be paying for it. But there's a lot of weird things in the suit.

Oh, and Ali I was the one who said I don't think Beta is a reliable filter. I wasn't speaking just about this, I was also speaking in general.

Keep in mind that the suit alleges that an e-mail was sent from Activision to Brent Milligan confirming that they would not use Velvet Revolver as a condition for getting the license to use WTTJ. If that e-mail is present, then it is NOT a "he said, she said" argument anymore.

Disbelieve the tearful apology as much as you want, but if an apology happened and others were present, Activision is screwed as an apology shows consciousness of guilt and wrongdoing.

Ali

[Bards]

Keep in mind that the suit alleges that an e-mail was sent from Activision to Brent Milligan confirming that they would not use Velvet Revolver as a condition for getting the license to use WTTJ. If that e-mail is present, then it is NOT a "he said, she said" argument anymore.

Absolutely.

However, again it remains to be seen whether the use of VR as additional downloadable content AFTER the game hit shelves was in violation of the agreement. It all depends how it's worded.

Disbelieve the tearful apology as much as you want, but if an apology happened and others were present, Activision is screwed as an apology shows consciousness of guilt and wrongdoing.

I don't believe it because it doesn't make sense. And if Riley made a giant tearful exhibition in front of a bunch of people (and not just Axl's people for that matter) then he'd know how screwed he was if he was the super-conniving executive he's made out to be. Which goes back to my original point of it not making sense.

And again, at the risk of repeating myself I question how much net gain there is for Activision to go to these extremes just to get one song that probably didn't affect sales in any tangible way.

Edited June 23, 2011 by Bards

[AGS]

Finally a discussion worth reading, at least the last 6-7 or so posts =)

[iftheworld]

Maybe they'll settle out of court by giving Axl a roll in the next "Call of Duty".

Just wishful thinking.

[kanudo19]

although slash had a part writting the song i agree with axl . in gh3 it appears "... jungle performed by guns n roses " but wht were seeing is an image of slash performing it , not guns n roses . slash isnt in guns n roses anymore so they couldnt break the agreement and do that ok ? at the end of the day wht really matters is did activision broke a signed contract with current guns n roses name owner axl rose ? yes.

[star]

Maybe they'll settle out of court by giving Axl a roll in the next "Call of Duty".

Just wishful thinking.

I don't think Activision work that way. They like to win no matter what the cost. They also have far more cash at their disposal. I should imagine they have a pretty good legal team.

Edited June 24, 2011 by star

[star]

Once I read about the verbal stuff on Axls / The House Keepers part, I figured Activison will win with ease, and cost Rose many $'s

although slash had a part writting the song i agree with axl . in gh3 it appears "... jungle performed by guns n roses " but wht were seeing is an image of slash performing it , not guns n roses . slash isnt in guns n roses anymore so they couldnt break the agreement and do that ok ? at the end of the day wht really matters is did activision broke a signed contract with current guns n roses name owner axl rose ? yes.

Welcome to the Jungle is by Guns N'Roses

Slash plays guitar on the record as featured in the game

GHIII is a guitar Orientated game - why would they want to show the drummer?

Axl has to be pretty stupid to tell Activision they can use the song, and not believe for one minute Slash isn't going to appear on screen.