Axl vs Activision

[Del Norte]

Especially when Axl must know that there's no way in hell Activision would feature Bumblefoot, Richard, or Ashba (well, you can pretend the Slash character is Ashba I guess). Also Axl would never allow something like that to happen anyway since the band are not and have never been marketed or placed as equals next to him. Over ten years and I think there's one short video of them all together off stage, and it's right before, or after, a show. Not a single picture or promo of any kind. Of course they'd use Slash! No one knows or cares about the current players in the slightest! lol.

[spunko12345]

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.

I see your point but surely as Slash was in the band when it was recorded they have a right to say it is Guns N Roses and claim the recording as Guns N Roses.

Like if Led Zeppelin reformed without Jimmy Page, no one would complain if Stairway For Heaven appeared on guitar hero with Page's image under the name Led Zepplin.

Because it is a Led Zeppelin song. Jimmy Page was in the band when it was recorded and that is the recording that was used.

If a version of WTTJ appeared on GH from a 2010 show, with a Slash picture, then their would be a case. But why would that ever happen?

[sailaway]

This topic is bullshit. You don't understand jackshit to what's legal and what's not.

You think that the image of Slash on the GHIII cover is comparable to DJ Ashba in GNR? You think DJ Ashba looks as much as Slash on the image of the GHIII cover? Does Mr. Ashba have a nose piercing, does he have long curly hair? Oh and most important, is DJ Ashba half a black man? NO. So your point is invalid, and hence as is the rest of your poor demonstration.

Good day.

I get so bummed by all the self-appointed Lawyers,producers,and wanna-be managers.

It gets old,Saul has been out of the band since 1996,by his own choice.

There is no viable reason he should be representing GNR in any way,implied or obvious.

[The Sandman]

"I am not attorney"

/thread

lol!

[FCBarcelona]

This topic is bullshit. You don't understand jackshit to what's legal and what's not.

You think that the image of Slash on the GHIII cover is comparable to DJ Ashba in GNR? You think DJ Ashba looks as much as Slash on the image of the GHIII cover? Does Mr. Ashba have a nose piercing, does he have long curly hair? Oh and most important, is DJ Ashba half a black man? NO. So your point is invalid, and hence as is the rest of your poor demonstration.

Good day.

I get so bummed by all the self-appointed Lawyers,producers,and wanna-be managers.

It gets old,Saul has been out of the band since 1996,by his own choice.

There is no viable reason he should be representing GNR in any way,implied or obvious.

The original post laid out the technicalities of the lawsuit for people to understand. The people dismissing this post have come to their own conclusions on this same legal matter, without even reading the lawsuit at all. Irony.

Irony, with capital I.

Is anyone else dismissing the syllogistic comments of "Slash is not in GN'R therefore Axl will win, case closed". Those people aren't attorneys either. What a carnival.

Whether you're a Slash fan, Axl fan, Azoff groupie, it doesn't matter. Axl is going to lose.

[sailaway]

"I am not attorney"

/thread

lol!

This! So why act like you attended some kind of community college type of "how to analyze court cases"? Fact,you are out of your element,over your head,and if the judge thought it was frivolous it would have been dismissed.

[FCBarcelona]

Activision should have just asked for summary judgement on day one. The lawsuit is empty.

[Spirit]

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.

I see your point but surely as Slash was in the band when it was recorded they have a right to say it is Guns N Roses and claim the recording as Guns N Roses.

Like if Led Zeppelin reformed without Jimmy Page, no one would complain if Stairway For Heaven appeared on guitar hero with Page's image under the name Led Zepplin.

Because it is a Led Zeppelin song. Jimmy Page was in the band when it was recorded and that is the recording that was used.

If a version of WTTJ appeared on GH from a 2010 show, with a Slash picture, then their would be a case. But why would that ever happen?

There's no Cliff or Jason in Guitar Hero Metallica even though they recorded the majority of the songs featured in the game. Why? They're interested in promoting the current line-up.

At least Axl was decent enough to say there shouldn't be any characters based on any current player either - given the song was recorded with Slash.

[sailaway]

This topic is bullshit. You don't understand jackshit to what's legal and what's not.

You think that the image of Slash on the GHIII cover is comparable to DJ Ashba in GNR? You think DJ Ashba looks as much as Slash on the image of the GHIII cover? UDoes Mr. Ashba have a nose piercing, does he have long curly hair? Oh and most important, is DJ Ashba half a black man? NO. So your point is invalid, and hence as is the rest of your poor demonstration.

Good day.

I get so bummed by all the self-appointed Lawyers,producers,and wanna-be managers.

It gets old,Saul has been out of the band since 1996,by his own choice.

There is no viable reason he should be representing GNR in any way,implied or obvious.

The original post laid out the technicalities of the lawsuit for people to understand. The people dismissing this post have come to their own conclusions on this same legal matter, without even reading the lawsuit at all. Irony.

Irony, with capital I.

Is anyone else dismissing the syllogistic comments of "Slash is not in GN'R therefore Axl will win, case closed". Those people aren't attorneys either. What a carnival.

Whether you're a Slash fan, Axl fan, Azoff groupie, it doesn't matter. Axl is going to lose.

No,you aren't credible,nor a judge,nor an attorney.

[FCBarcelona]

So why should anyone have a comment? Your logic failed. Acknowledge it. Your post was ironic.

Just because someone isn't an attorney doesn't mean that can't have an understanding of legal matters. Anyone who works in a business normally would have some understanding. Law is not just for lawyers.

Your logic is even more glib. You are saying, or implying, that because someone isn't an attorney, they must be wrong? Why not point where they are wrong? You're just being dismissive. That's all.

This! So why act like you attended some kind of community college type of "how to analyze court cases"? Fact,you are out of your element,over your head,and if the judge thought it was frivolous it would have been dismissed.

Oh, it's a "Fact". Well, now I can't argue against those.

"if the judge thought it was frivolous it would have been dismissed."

>>implying all frivolous lawsuits are dismissed in the initial stages.

Time and money has not even begun to be wasted yet.

Edited June 26, 2011 by FCBarcelona

[sailaway]

So why should anyone have a comment? Your logic failed. Acknowledge it. Your post was ironic.

Just because someone isn't an attorney doesn't mean that can't have an understanding of legal matters. Anyone who works in a business normally would have some understanding. Law is not just for lawyers.

Your logic is even more glib. You are saying, or implying, that because someone isn't an attorney, they must be wrong? Why not point where they are wrong? You're just being dismissive. That's all.

No,I'm saying merely to observe the years of school and training lawyers go through,and for some POP N' Fresh inexperienced e-attorney wanna be,to "examine" the facts of this upcoming case,and evaluate it is a Fucking joke. What is the op going to do next? Be a pretend medical examiner and perform an autopsy?

The case was allowed to proceed by a real judge,and there are real attorneys involved.Why should I pay attention to an amature,who has no Fucking ties to Activision,GNR or the judicial system? We already have one thread about this topic.

[FCBarcelona]

It's spelled "amateur".

I said your post was full of LOL because it was pure irony. I was right.

I said you were being dismissive. I was right.

You're doing more sidetracking, apples/oranges comparisons. It took you ten whole minutes to come up with that post?

You are still 100% silent with regards to the original post. If the original poster is wrong, then prove the poster wrong. Else, you really don't have much to say? Right?

And yes, I'm right.

[sailaway]

It's spelled "amateur".

I said your post was full of LOL because it was pure irony. I was right.

I said you were being dismissive. I was right.

You're doing more sidetracking, apples/oranges comparisons. It took you ten whole minutes to come up with that post?

You are still 100% silent with regards to the original post. If the original poster is wrong, then prove the poster wrong. Else, you really don't have much to say? Right?

And yes, I'm right.

No actually I have a life,and I'm posting in between ordering supper,if you must know.I still see no reason to take this "unofficial analysis" serious,more than likely you are a spammer from another board,I don't believe in self-appointed e-experts,period.

I also would not use a lawyer who hadn't passed the state bar.

This topic is without merit,full of supposition and absolutely useless in the grand scheme of things.

[FCBarcelona]

No life? I have under 10 posts dude, you have 10 times as many as me. This thread has over a 100 posts in it. None of them present in arguments against the original post. People are just shooting the messenger because they don't like the message. Just being dismissive. At the end of the day, Axl will lose. The only reason I commented was because of so many asinine comments like "Slash left GN'R, Axl's going to win this." If you didn't like this thread, then don't comment in it. You certainly haven't contributed anything to the discussion. Peace out.

-Pep

[sailaway]

No life? I have under 10 posts dude, you have 10 times as many as me. This thread has over a 100 posts in it. None of them present in arguments against the original post. People are just shooting the messenger because they don't like the message. Just being dismissive. At the end of the day, Axl will lose. The only reason I commented was because of so many asinine comments like "Slash left GN'R, Axl's going to win this." If you didn't like this thread, then don't comment in it. You certainly haven't contributed anything to the discussion. Peace out.

-Pep

And you have contributed your own suppositions,your own theories,and your own "failure to communicate".The "analysis" was done,not by a lawyer,or anybody in the judicial system,but by some 16 year old know it all,who obviously likes playing lawyer. I'm not taking any of this speculative Bullshit as anything viable or remotely useful.

This topic is a waste of space,and you are beyond gullible to believe it.

[volcano62]

At the end of the day, Axl will lose. to the discussion. Peace out.

Are you ignoring the fact that Activision breached their agreement and are totally in the wrong?

[sailaway]

At the end of the day, Axl will lose. to the discussion. Peace out.

Are you ignoring the fact that Activision breached their agreement and are totally in the wrong?

His make-believe attorney told him so.

[FCBarcelona]

At the end of the day, Axl will lose. to the discussion. Peace out.

Are you ignoring the fact that Activision breached their agreement and are totally in the wrong?

Axl's lawsuit alleges that there was a breach. That does not make it a fact. This isn't a divisive issue. If you take the time to read the lawsuit about the alleged breach you'll see that there really wasn't one. Nothing more than an email reply during the period of negotiation. The lawsuit was over before it started.

Edited June 27, 2011 by FCBarcelona

[volcano62]

The lawsuit was over before it started.

Mr. Know It All with 9 posts

Anyway there is no way Axl let them use Saul associated with GNR in any way shape or form. Thus making his claim of the agreement breach a fact and not a lie like you are trying to imply.

[FCBarcelona]

Well looks like you didn't read the lawsuit, and you didn't read the original post, save the title.

Axl doesn't control all of Guns N' Roses, no matter how much he would want to pursue that myth.

Have you seen the Welcome to the Jungle video on YouTube, from? There's a reason Slash is still there.

There was a lawsuit in the mid 2000s you can read about here:

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1486792/axl-rose-sued-by-exguns-n-roses-bandmates.jhtml

In the suit, Rose is accused of rejecting requests to use old Guns N' Roses songs in major motion pictures even though he lacks controlling interest in the material.

The injection of Welcome to the Jungle into the lawsuit wasn't successful.

21. Given the continuing importance of "Welcome to the Jungle" to the band Guns N' Roses and to Rose personally, who is the primary writer and originator of the song and it's co-author. Rose is very cautious in his approval of any license for its use. Rose has always acted vigilantly to preserve the integrity of the Guns N' Roses name and reputation and to ensure its ongoing success and this includes the use of its signature song.

There are actually two "Guns N' Roses". One that exists is the pre-1996 partnership, and the other is that new band that Axl created after the breakup that happened to have the same name. They aren't actually the same band, and Axl's band can't compete against the old band. That's why you're never going to see Slash erased from Appetite nor see a Nu-GNR rerecorded Appetite.

The post 1996 Guns N' Roses never made Welcome to the Jungle. Therefore the lawsuit is misleading when it uses the possessive "its signature song". As much as Axl would like to divest and disassociate Slash from Welcome to The Jungle, it's something he can never do.

The whole lawsuit is a huge failure. If you really supported Axl's side then you'd be concerned about the representation he's had business-wise the past ten years.

[Spirit]

There are actually two "Guns N' Roses". One that exists is the pre-1996 partnership, and the other is that new band that Axl created after the breakup that happened to have the same name. They aren't actually the same band, and Axl's band can't compete against the old band. That's why you're never going to see Slash erased from Appetite nor see a Nu-GNR rerecorded Appetite.

The post 1996 Guns N' Roses never made Welcome to the Jungle. Therefore the lawsuit is misleading when it uses the possessive "its signature song". As much as Axl would like to divest and disassociate Slash from Welcome to The Jungle, it's something he can never do.

The whole lawsuit is a huge failure. If you really supported Axl's side then you'd be concerned about the representation he's had business-wise the past ten years.

The above is just a fan's opinion and feelings, it doesn't hold water legally speaking. To say Welcome To The Jungle is one of Guns N' Roses' signature songs would be correct, and still is today. Even if Axl is the sole original member, it has always been Guns N' Roses. It's not so much that Axl wants do disassociate Slash from Welcome To The Jungle as he doesn't want Slash promoting himself under the GN'R banner today. Slash chose to leave the band, he must also take the consequenses such as not being able to use the band name (which Axl legally owns) for his own gain commercially.

The band gradually replaced members.. Duff was in the band along with Finck, he said they had started writing songs as well.

Guns N' Roses as a band never ended, it's been an evolving band.

[FCBarcelona]

Don't disregard my post as "just a fan's opinion and feelings". I backed up my post, you didn't. You just ran a logical from some misunderstanding that Axl control's Guns N' Roses 100% which he doesn't. Slash can still appear on an Appetite for Destruction CD sold in stores today. Slash didn't leave the band like someone leaving a company and losing the right to the company car. He was the company, and still is. Divesting Slash from the original Guns N' Roses products would not only be unconscionable, it would be unenforceable. The lawsuit really only shows that Axl's camp was unhappy that Slash was associated with Guns N' Roses, not that he could not be.

[gunsguy]

Don't disregard my post as "just a fan's opinion and feelings". I backed up my post, you didn't. You just ran a logical from some misunderstanding that Axl control's Guns N' Roses 100% which he doesn't. Slash can still appear on an Appetite for Destruction CD sold in stores today. Slash didn't leave the band like someone leaving a company and losing the right to the company car. He was the company, and still is. Divesting Slash from the original Guns N' Roses products would not only be unconscionable, it would be unenforceable. The lawsuit really only shows that Axl's camp was unhappy that Slash was associated with Guns N' Roses, not that he could not be.

The difference is this. Slash appearing on GN'R stuff (afd etc) BEFORE he left of course he is on it and can be.

It is entirely different to say he is allowed to promote himself or allow a company to do so as GN'R now that he is no longer in the band...

AFD - Yes of course

GH - (released AFTER his departure) No not the same thing at all.

[Spirit]

Don't disregard my post as "just a fan's opinion and feelings". I backed up my post, you didn't. You just ran a logical from some misunderstanding that Axl control's Guns N' Roses 100% which he doesn't. Slash can still appear on an Appetite for Destruction CD sold in stores today. Slash didn't leave the band like someone leaving a company and losing the right to the company car. He was the company, and still is. Divesting Slash from the original Guns N' Roses products would not only be unconscionable, it would be unenforceable. The lawsuit really only shows that Axl's camp was unhappy that Slash was associated with Guns N' Roses, not that he could not be.

Divesting Slash from original Guns N' Roses products is not the case here. It's Slash appearing in a *NEW* product, promoting Guns N' Roses. It was always going to be the original version of Welcome To The Jungle appearing in the game. All of the original members would be credited for the song.

[FCBarcelona]

The difference is this. Slash appearing on GN'R stuff (afd etc) BEFORE he left of course he is on it and can be.

It is entirely different to say he is allowed to promote himself or allow a company to do so as GN'R now that he is no longer in the band...

AFD - Yes of course

GH - (released AFTER his departure) No not the same thing at all.

The Appetite for Destruction song "Welcome to the Jungle" is not a new product, no matter what medium it appears under. Not even if it appears on a CD, and MP3, a FLAC. A hemorrhoid commercial, a movie, presidential campaign, nor a video game.