Izzy's rights to GNR name

[Liquor & Whores]

anyone know what happened to Izzy's rights to GNR name? did he sell, resign ?

all the stories, docs concern Axl Slash Duff but not Izzy...

Edited March 16, 2016 by Liquor & Whores

[Słash]

He legally left the band in 1991. The rights to the name is owned by Axl, but the Partnership of the "company" is in the hands of Axl, Slash and Duff. 

Izzy signed over everything when he left. 

[-W.A.R-]

i think his rights to the band (not the name, Axl owns that) expired in like 97 or so

can't say thats 100% accurate but i remember reading something like that somewhere

Edited March 18, 2016 by -W.A.R-

[Liquor & Whores]

9 minutes ago, -W.A.R- said:

i think his rights to the band (not the name, Axl owns that) expired in like 97 or so

can't say thats 100% accurate but i remember reading something like that somewhere

talking about this? http://www.heretodaygonetohell.com/news/shownews.php?newsid=7

[-W.A.R-]

found it:

Quote

In November, Izzy was formally out of the GNR partnership in all its forms.

"When I left the group my lawyers negotiated a deal which said that I was to be given a certain percent on everything the group earned until November 1997." (Izzy, Expressen, 03/20/98)

for lulz: (this is something totally different and has nothing to do with rights btw its just hilarious)

Quote

"Probably a month later, one night [Axl] calls me [and] we got into the issue of me leaving Guns N' Roses. I told him how it was on my side. Told him exactly how I felt about it and why I left.... But, I mean he had a fucking notepad. I could hear him [turning the pages] going, 'Well, ah, you said in 1982... ' He was bringing up a lot of really weird old shit. I'm like, whatever, man. But that's the last time I talked to him. (Izzy, Classic Rock, 2001)

 

Edited March 16, 2016 by -W.A.R-

[Słash]

So basically he wanted to earn from the tours which he was not even a part of and how come he came up with a November 1997 date?

[Subtle Signs]

Fortus should be giving Izzy a percentage of his earnings for looking  like him and playing songs that Izzy wrote for the last 15 years.

[bikka]

44 minutes ago, Slash787 said:

So basically he wanted to earn from the tours which he was not even a part of and how come he came up with a November 1997 date?

Maybe that was the way the rest of the band paid him off for giving away his rights in the partnership? Otherwise they would have to fork out a substantial amount of money at once...

[Archtop]

I understand that he gave away his partnership rights. How much legal standing does he retain when his image or name is used in relation to guns and roses? I am assume he still gets royalties from songs.

What happens if future albums are released with somebody else playing his parts? For example say a greatest hits compilation with Fortus playing instead of Izzy. 

 

[MYWIFEMYLIFE]

Izzy is GNR.

[-W.A.R-]

33 minutes ago, Archtop said:

I understand that he gave away his partnership rights. How much legal standing does he retain when his image or name is used in relation to guns and roses? I am assume he still gets royalties from songs.

What happens if future albums are released with somebody else playing his parts? For example say a greatest hits compilation with Fortus playing instead of Izzy. 

 

yeah i would think he'd receives royalties from records that has his name in the credits

i mean wtf else would he be living on? that million dollars he forgot is dried up by now

i don't think he would get anything from say a DVD/bluray of live performances during UYI or anything along those lines

[liers]

4 hours ago, Subtle Signs said:

Fortus should be giving Izzy a percentage of his earnings for looking  like him and playing songs that Izzy wrote for the last 15 years.

Or just give izzy a percentage of his nose... Fortus, frank, or any new gnu member probably haven't made much.

[TheSeeker]

I wonder if the band's hiatus after 1993 was partially a "let's delay everything until 1997 so we don't have to pay Izzy shit" move

[Mr. Dude]

6 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

I wonder if the band's hiatus after 1993 was partially a "let's delay everything until 1997 so we don't have to pay Izzy shit" move..

To be fair, Axl was facing a dizzying array of lawsuits back in those days....and I gotta say all things considered, he took it like a champ.

[wasted]

Axl's lawsuits is probably another reason why he didn't throw GNR away. It's probably all he had at some point. 

[sonofnazareth]

Izzy needs to Get up, Stand Up, Stand Up For His Rights!

[TheSeeker]

4 hours ago, Mr. Dude said:

To be fair, Axl was facing a dizzying array of lawsuits back in those days....and I gotta say all things considered, he took it like a champ.

But I remember Matt Sorum saying after the 1993 tour ended, that the last thing Axl said to him was "see you in 2 years!"

There must have been a reason for the planned break

[tsinindy]

3 minutes ago, TheSeeker said:

But I remember Matt Sorum saying after the 1993 tour ended, that the last thing Axl said to him was "see you in 2 years!"

There must have been a reason for the planned break

There was...they all needed a break.  From each other, from everything.  They'd been on the road touring for over two years straight and working on the illusions records for quite some time before that.

[sonofnazareth]

3 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

But I remember Matt Sorum saying after the 1993 tour ended, that the last thing Axl said to him was "see you in 2 years!"

There must have been a reason for the planned break

hair transplant.

[stella]

19 hours ago, Archtop said:

I understand that he gave away his partnership rights. How much legal standing does he retain when his image or name is used in relation to guns and roses? I am assume he still gets royalties from songs.

What happens if future albums are released with somebody else playing his parts? For example say a greatest hits compilation with Fortus playing instead of Izzy. 

 

Song royalties are a different kettle of fish; he's always entitled to his royalties from the songs he co-wrote/played on. Adler still gets AfD royalties, too. And if the songs are used elsewhere, the licensing fees get paid to the licensing organization (can't remember if that's BMI or ASCAP for Guns N' Roses) and then get passed on to him and the other songwriters.

If someone else recorded his parts, AFAIK he'd still get some sort of payment as the original songwriter but since ASD seem to have full control over usage of Guns N' Roses' music, they would not be required to get Izzy's consent to record. That situation has already come up: both Slash and Axl have released DVDs of their respective bands playing GnR music with someone covering Izzy's parts. They needed each other to sign off on those DVDs (and probably Duff had to sign off on both) because they control the GnR catalogue but they didn't need Izzy's permission at all because he doesn't control the songs.

Using someone's likeness is tricky. You're allowed to use likenesses of people for purposes of news or commentary without their consent. So if Rolling Stone wanted to put a photo of him in their magazine tomorrow in an article about Guns N' Roses, they don't need his consent and they don't pay him for it. Something like Marc Canter's book would fall under the same rules; it's editorial commentary. If Guns N' Roses put out a press release tomorrow that had images of the old band, ditto. Using someone's name is likewise allowed in these circumstances. It's the same concept that allows all those trashy tabloids to print stories and paparazzi photos of celebrities; they're able to consider it news/editorial commentary usage.

If they wanted to put Izzy's likeness on a t-shirt or a coffee mug and sell it, that would likely be a different story because it would be using his face for commercial gain. Izzy would have to specifically agree to it. But they have not done that. And the skull on AfD doesn't count because technically even if the entire world knows it represents Izzy, it's not actually his face or a faithful reproduction of it.

The only exception would be if the rights were already signed away. If Rock Star X signed a contract with Acme Shirt Company in 1990 and it specifically gave the company permission to use his photos in any form in perpetuity, they can roll out merch with those images forever. Those agreements do bite celebrities hard sometimes. Madonna posed for some nude photos in the late 70s, when she was struggling to get by, and they paid her a flat fee for perpetual use of the images. When she got famous the photographer sold them to Playboy, and there was nothing she could do about it. They're still appearing in books and magazines now, and there's nothing that can be done to stop it because she was an adult who signed away her rights to the photos.

[gunsfanoldie]

17 hours ago, TheSeeker said:

I wonder if the band's hiatus after 1993 was partially a "let's delay everything until 1997 so we don't have to pay Izzy shit" move

I 100%, highly, can't think of a word strong enough, doubt that. The band finished a 2 and a half year tour in 93. Put out a covers album at the end of that year. They took a break because they were completely fried. They were ready to get back to work in 95 and they were on different pages. Which is why that incarnation of the band broke up. Its actually all extremely transparent the way it all worked out. Honestly, it just was bad timing on Izzy's part that the band didn't do anything for 7 years after 93, although I'd also be willing to bet he knew the end was coming soon.

As @tsinindy said, I think thats exactly what happened. They just needed a break.

[Slosh13]

On 3/17/2016 at 1:06 PM, sonofnazareth said:

Izzy needs to Get up, Stand Up, Stand Up For His Rights!

How? He gave them up [his rights].

 

 

[sonofnazareth]

1 hour ago, Slosh13 said:

How? He gave them up [his rights].

 

 

I'm just singing some bob marley dude...don't take me seriously. 

[john lennon]

u he left the band