Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit

[GibsonLP]

No Gagarin is right. Even when schools put on a play they have to pay the rights to perform the music. Axl has to pay to the others that wrote the song

[Damn_Smooth]

No Gagarin is right. Even when schools put on a play they have to pay the rights to perform the music. Axl has to pay to the others that wrote the song

So him and Izzy will be splitting the vast majority of the money. Would Axl have a problem with that? Slash and Duff really can't have much say in songs they didn't write, can they?

Honest questions BTW, you seem to know more about this than I do.

[HisRoyalSweetness]

my only hope is that axl testifies.

[ThinkAboutYou]

How dare Slash feature on Welcome To The Jungle

[GibsonLP]

No Gagarin is right. Even when schools put on a play they have to pay the rights to perform the music. Axl has to pay to the others that wrote the song

So him and Izzy will be splitting the vast majority of the money. Would Axl have a problem with that? Slash and Duff really can't have much say in songs they didn't write, can they?

Honest questions BTW, you seem to know more about this than I do.

Yeah I don't know specifics about how it will be divied up with these guys etc but musicians earn money from others performing songs they wrote. Unless they sold those rights. Like Michael Jackson used to own several songs by The Beatles which meant that Michael Jackson got the money when people performed those songs by The Beatles. In fact in that case I believe if Paul McCartney were performing one of those songs live he would have been paying money to Michael Jackson to do so. As far as I am aware, Slash and Duff, and Izzy at least didn't sell their rights to these songs.

All the Appetite For Destruction songs are registered as having been written by Axl, Izzy, Slash, Duff, and Steven together I think.

Edited August 15, 2012 by rydog

[Gagarin]

It's about time that Steven, Slash, Izzy and Duff start a lawsuit against Axl to stop him using/butchering the classic songs.

Beleive it or not, they make money off of Axl playing the songs live. At least if they're credited as a songwriter on the particular song.

They don't make money when they are played live. I think the only way they get a cut is if a song is used in a movie, commercial, video game etc....

This is why Axl wanted the re-recorded Jungle for Blackhawk Down.

Yes, yes they do. A small amount, but they do. Everytime it's played anywhere they get a check. Even people who write church songs get checks for what is played at church. Every venue pays a fee and through reporting, that fee is eventually channeled down to the writers.

They may get a small percentage from the venue licensing fees, if the venue uploads the set lists to ASAP, BMI or SESAC; but they don't have to do it and have no reason to do it unless they are already paying a licence fee to the aforementioned organizations.

An artist or group can play anything they want live and pay nothing, unless it is recorded; filmed and released commercially.

ASCAP and BMI actively pursue venues and businesses that don't pay fees. They peruse or threaten litigation against places that don't.

Each year they take a sample of their customers and yes, the customers have to report what gets played. From that sample they extrapolate and distribute the money.

Yes, they can play anything they want. The venue has the responsibility for paying for the license.

Obviously the stadiums and arenas and venues GNR plays pays the license. And if they are supposed to be reporting that year, then, yes, they're going to report back what was played...including the before show mix-CD.

I don't understand what your point is.

The point is you're wrong, for reasons that have been brought to your attention. Slash et al aren't picking up money for anything that isn't released commercially.

The church songs thing was the most puzzling example you could choose, as most hymns were written eons and eons ago.

Back to the lawsuit, it looks like the more ridiculous things were tossed and it comes down to whether Activision's deal with GNR Music superceds Axl's "But I hate Slash" precedent.

The point is you're wrong.

Uh, most churches aren't playing songs written eons ago. Most have some form of contemporary music. Even the *most* traditional churches have modern arrangements which would be copyrighted. The arrangements mean everything to choral music. Everybody pays the piper.

ASCAP and BMI write checks to their members, which would include the various proxies for GNR Music and the others, based on extrapolations from a survey. Every time it's on the radio, every time it's played at a football game, every time it's played on a jukebox, every time a bar band plays it, everytime a country music star covers a GNR song, every time Slash plays GNR music, every time Axl plays GNR music, every time. Even when a bar or a venue doesn't play GNR (or Lady Gaga), money goes GNR's (or Lady Gaga's) way - because it's paid out based on extrapolating the survey. The venue plays a flat fee based on size and ASCAP and BMI sort the rest out. It's not much, but it adds up. Axl gave Steven some of his publishing, which over the years probably cost him millions.

The performer doesn't pay, the venue/place of business does. It's a cost of doing business.

Anyway- good for Axl, if Activision lied to him, then go for it.

GNR Music = Axl, Slash, Duff, if I recall.

Edited August 15, 2012 by Gagarin

[Redhead74]

Activision is also currently facing a suit from the Gwen Stefani-fronted rock band No Doubt. In that 2009 suit, the band claimed Activision had no contractual right to allow the group's in-game avatars to be used to perform other artists' songs. Additionally, the suit alleges Activision secretly hired actors to create dance movements that no band member had ever performed. No Doubt vs. Activision will go before a jury in Los Angeles Superior Court beginning October 15.

In typical corporate style Activision will probably continue this kind of behaviour to the next artist they enlist to help sell their products and will continue to deal with court cases over it. They know exactly what they are doing and have either decided its worth the penalties the court may impose if they lose, or perhaps they know they will win? This kind of crap just complicates an already over commercialised industry. Just make some bloody music and tell all the vultures to fuck off, Axl.

[jmapelian]

It's also on the front of Rolling Stones now :

Half of Axl Rose's Lawsuit Against 'Guitar Hero' to Proceed

Singer sued over inclusion of Slash on cover of video game

This is why the lawsuit was a dumb idea, to be frank. The bad press he's going to get off this is the sort of thing he hates, so why even bother?

All people are going to remember about this is: Oh my god I can't believe that asshole is going after Slash again! Can you believe he's suing them for using Slash on one of his own songs? WTF!

That's not all there is to it, but that's what the pop culture perception will be. It's just more fuel to the fire that "Axl hates Slash," etc.

too bad the judge only tossed half the suit - he should have dismissed the whole thing and told axl to stop waisting everyone's time

Is this lawsuit just a setup for an excuse?

"We couldn't release CDII while dealing with the lawsuits."

self imposed no less, and yet he complains about it

[jmapelian]

I think it's quite obvious this is all for money, not merely Guns N' Roses' image. If he really cared about the image he would do a settlement out of court.

...I think the opposite is true. If he just settled that's a garuanteed payday. This way he's gambling $20 million, just to prove a point.

And what point is that? that he hates slash? yeah, anyone that knows anything about this band knows axl hates slash -- it's a moronic and sophmoric lawsuit and axl just proves the lie when he states he doesn't care about the $$ -- so what, he turns down 100$ mil for a reunion but sues activision for $20 mil? He's not high and mighty and above the $$ like he likes to claim he is, he's trying to taking his cut of $100 mil split 5 ways!! Silly people buying his nonsense -

[Cruel Intentions]

Who needs new music, we could have our own Chinese Democracy Guitar Hero game five years after the album came out thanks to Axl!!!

[Guest]

It'd be awesome if Guitar Hero released a Guns N' Roses edition, like they did with Aerosmith a few years back. Man that game would get played til my fingers bled

[Axls Rocket Queen]

Man that game would get played til my fingers bled

Release date: Summer 2069?

[dalsh327]

It's about time that Steven, Slash, Izzy and Duff start a lawsuit against Axl to stop him using/butchering the classic songs.

Beleive it or not, they make money off of Axl playing the songs live. At least if they're credited as a songwriter on the particular song.

They don't make money when they are played live. I think the only way they get a cut is if a song is used in a movie, commercial, video game etc....

This is why Axl wanted the re-recorded Jungle for Blackhawk Down.

Yes, yes they do. A small amount, but they do. Everytime it's played anywhere they get a check. Even people who write church songs get checks for what is played at church. Every venue pays a fee and through reporting, that fee is eventually channeled down to the writers.

They may get a small percentage from the venue licensing fees, if the venue uploads the set lists to ASAP, BMI or SESAC; but they don't have to do it and have no reason to do it unless they are already paying a licence fee to the aforementioned organizations.

An artist or group can play anything they want live and pay nothing, unless it is recorded; filmed and released commercially.

ASCAP and BMI actively pursue venues and businesses that don't pay fees. They peruse or threaten litigation against places that don't.

Each year they take a sample of their customers and yes, the customers have to report what gets played. From that sample they extrapolate and distribute the money.

Yes, they can play anything they want. The venue has the responsibility for paying for the license.

Obviously the stadiums and arenas and venues GNR plays pays the license. And if they are supposed to be reporting that year, then, yes, they're going to report back what was played...including the before show mix-CD.

I don't understand what your point is.

The point is you're wrong, for reasons that have been brought to your attention. Slash et al aren't picking up money for anything that isn't released commercially.

The church songs thing was the most puzzling example you could choose, as most hymns were written eons and eons ago.

Back to the lawsuit, it looks like the more ridiculous things were tossed and it comes down to whether Activision's deal with GNR Music superceds Axl's "But I hate Slash" precedent.

The point is you're wrong.

Uh, most churches aren't playing songs written eons ago. Most have some form of contemporary music. Even the *most* traditional churches have modern arrangements which would be copyrighted. The arrangements mean everything to choral music. Everybody pays the piper.

ASCAP and BMI write checks to their members, which would include the various proxies for GNR Music and the others, based on extrapolations from a survey. Every time it's on the radio, every time it's played at a football game, every time it's played on a jukebox, every time a bar band plays it, everytime a country music star covers a GNR song, every time Slash plays GNR music, every time Axl plays GNR music, every time. Even when a bar or a venue doesn't play GNR (or Lady Gaga), money goes GNR's (or Lady Gaga's) way - because it's paid out based on extrapolating the survey. The venue plays a flat fee based on size and ASCAP and BMI sort the rest out. It's not much, but it adds up. Axl gave Steven some of his publishing, which over the years probably cost him millions.

The performer doesn't pay, the venue/place of business does. It's a cost of doing business.

Anyway- good for Axl, if Activision lied to him, then go for it.

GNR Music = Axl, Slash, Duff, if I recall.

I think Activision is going to try to rope Slash and Duff into it.

I don't think it's a ridiculous case, it all depends on what Activision promised Axl.

[deepfreeze]

I can't wait til he loses.

[Tabitha27]

Not sure if this has been added to the discussion but judge set a court date for february 1, 2013 for part of lawsuit that was not thrown out

http://www.examiner.com/article/axl-rose-receives-court-date-for-lawsuit-against-activision

[Dariablue]

Right before Axl's birthday. Happy early birthday to him.

[Modano09]

Wait, so if I pay money to go to a bar and watch a cover band, wouldn't that band have to pay royalties to the bands who wrote the songs? Obviously their cut from a bar crowd watching a cover band would be too small to bother collecting but if a band playing songs live have to pay some royalty to the writers of the song wouldn't the bar example be the same thing?

[shotgunblues1978]

I can't wait til he loses.

Axl will emerge victorious yet again, leaving you and the rest of the haters in tears

[Chris 55]

I can't wait til he loses.

Axl will emerge victorious yet again, leaving you and the rest of the haters in tears

Jesus, you're overly dramatic aren't you?

[shotgunblues1978]

I can't wait til he loses.

Axl will emerge victorious yet again, leaving you and the rest of the haters in tears

Jesus, you're overly dramatic aren't you?

I was joking; I'd hoped the post was over the top enough to convey that

[hudsonsaul]

The most interesting part of this article is this quote from Axl:

".....three partners of GNR Music"

when he is speaking of approving the use of material.

THIS IS HUGE for personally, as I've often wondered how material can be agreed to be used, ...obviously we all know Axl owns the name, but I've always known that there will be more to it than just Axls say.

Anyone know who the three partners of GNR Music are? Imagine this shit is public information?...dunno tho.

[shotgunblues1978]

The most interesting part of this article is this quote from Axl:

".....three partners of GNR Music"

when he is speaking of approving the use of material.

THIS IS HUGE for personally, as I've often wondered how material can be agreed to be used, ...obviously we all know Axl owns the name, but I've always known that there will be more to it than just Axls say.

Anyone know who the three partners of GNR Music are? Imagine this shit is public information?...dunno tho.

Yes, it is Axl, Slash and Duff. This was a legal agreement reached many years ago. Something along the lines of Axl received the name but they all need to sign off on decisions to license the old songs (or at least old songs they all have writing credits on)

[Bards]

Wait, so if I pay money to go to a bar and watch a cover band, wouldn't that band have to pay royalties to the bands who wrote the songs? Obviously their cut from a bar crowd watching a cover band would be too small to bother collecting but if a band playing songs live have to pay some royalty to the writers of the song wouldn't the bar example be the same thing?

"Shhh....he's rolling" - Animal House

[phaeryen]

I'm just happy Axl is courtside again, I think it became like a second home and nature to him during the mid to late 90's and onwards and he embraced the culture.

Getting a good lawsuit going is like coming home for Axl. It's his version of rock 'n roll and being a rebel.

duking it out in the courts with money.

go rock them out, Axl.

[SweetRose]

I wish they would bring(especially) Slash and Duff on a day that Axl would be in court.At least it would get Axl and Slash in the same room!

And how did Izzy and Steven get left out of this equation when it came to creating GNR Music or whatever?How come they get no say?I mean I could see maybe Steven not getting a say,cause they fired his ass.But Izzy?

Edited August 16, 2012 by SweetRose