Wacky World of The Ominous Ninja Izzy Stradlin and NO! Gang

[dgnr]

Omg they didn't erase our Lord and Saviour nor Steven  AFD5 starts now jk 
 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by dgnr

[MillionsOfSpiders]

I really like that litho. I saw some complaining about it in the litho thread because it's weird to have Izzy and Steven on something, when they aren't there. I don't think it is. Also we know the band are looking at what's on these things and keeping them for themselves which is cool. 

[Tombstoneflavor]

I like the stained glass motif. But, I think keeping the original members is more of a branding move than anything else. I guess whoever owns the name and rights of the band, also owns the member's likeness and doesn't need permission. On a side note, I bet for people pursuing an education in entertainment law must use GNR for a case study at some point lol! 

[Archtop]

I really don't like the use of the AFD cross to promote the current line up. In fact I find it slightly insulting too Izzy and Steven that they are making money from their  likeness,  whilst seemingly not willing to have them participate at the shows. 

But then I am just an old grump?

Having said all of  that it is a beautiful litho, love the colours.

[MillionsOfSpiders]

1 hour ago, Tombstoneflavor said:

I like the stained glass motif. But, I think keeping the original members is more of a branding move than anything else. I guess whoever owns the name and rights of the band, also owns the member's likeness and doesn't need permission. On a side note, I bet for people pursuing an education in entertainment law must use GNR for a case study at some point lol! 

The artist who drew the AFD cross said the cross and the skulls were Axl's idea and he did the rest. So I guess Axl owns the rights to the image.

[Fourteenbeers]

8 hours ago, Jane M. said:

#ManCrushMonday

Dear Lord.  Axl's face... Thanks Jane, I think my fascination with him is totally over now. 

1 hour ago, Archtop said:

I really don't like the use of the AFD cross to promote the current line up. In fact I find it slightly insulting too Izzy and Steven that they are making money from their  likeness,  whilst seemingly not willing to have them participate at the shows. 

But then I am just an old grump?

Would you like something like this, with the current lineup? 

[Archtop]

34 minutes ago, Fourteenbeers said:

 

Would you like something like this, with the current lineup? 

No I don't think that would work either, It's hideous!

I think to try and tamper with something as iconic as the skull cross would be very difficult, didn't they use a fan created image early on in the regrouping depicting just Axl, Slash and duff and thier was a bit of an out cry then. 

I just think its wrong to use the old imagery relating to the current tour, as I find it odd that they still use original photos of the band promoting music sites.

I really wonder why they never launched new publicity shots of the band with the regrouping or just shots of  Axl, Duff and Slash together.

Axl often seems to be reminding us that Fortus, Ferrar (for blah blah years) and Melisa are in the band, but no promotional pictures to cement it. The PR surrounding this band has always been weird and never clean cut, but seriously what other band do you know have used a likeness of an old band member for a new line up. No matter the importance or history of the image.

[Darkenchantress]

1 hour ago, Fourteenbeers said:

Would you like something like this, with the current lineup? 

[Jane M.]

1 hour ago, Fourteenbeers said:

Would you like something like this, with the current lineup? 

That's a crime to humanity. 

[Fourteenbeers]

8 minutes ago, Jane M. said:

That's a crime to humanity. 

+=

Is that so.... 

P.S. @Archtop I agree with you  (though I really liked the Vienna litho) 

[Archtop]

Just now, Fourteenbeers said:

Is that so.... 

P.S. @Archtop I agree with you  (though I really liked the Vienna litho) 

Don't get me wrong, I really liked it too.  See this band is such a head F**k, I would contemplate buying if I attended the show, whilst battling with myself that it was wrong.

What I do wonder is, do you suppose that when they use the AFD cross which has the likeness of Izzy and Steven that they get some sort of payout? I know the 3 partnership owns a lot of the logos etc but would thier be clauses for  those images being reproduced in a new context?

[Jane M.]

Not the first the use the Appetite logo: 

On 13/2/2017 at 4:25 AM, estrangedtwat said:

2016-08-05

Houston TX

This one looks a lot better.

[Fourteenbeers]

28 minutes ago, Archtop said:

Don't get me wrong, I really liked it too.  See this band is such a head F**k, I would contemplate buying if I attended the show, whilst battling with myself that it was wrong.

What I do wonder is, do you suppose that when they use the AFD cross which has the likeness of Izzy and Steven that they get some sort of payout? I know the 3 partnership owns a lot of the logos etc but would thier be clauses for  those images being reproduced in a new context?

I've heard/read lot about the logo and the whole AFD album art, but I have no idea how the finances work (meaning who gets paid and how much). Obviously it feels bad if they make money using Izzy's and Steven's images (well, skull versions of them) without any payout for them. 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Fourteenbeers
typo

[dgnr]

1 minute ago, Jane M. said:

Not the first the use the Appetite logo: 

This one looks a lot better.

I didn't remember this one. The US lithos were pretty nice. I remember one that I'm not sure that if it was San Diego or LA where it had the AFD cross under a skateboard or something. But I liked this one a lot, I don't know the colors are cool, I think it would look really cool on a shirt. But overall I agree with everything @Archtop said, feels wrong they're using the AFD art to promote this threeunion, but I prefer they do this than erase Izzy and Steven's skulls. That really pisses me off.

[Jane M.]

@dgnr Found it: 

On 13/2/2017 at 4:32 AM, estrangedtwat said:

2016-08-18

2016-08-19

Los Angeles CA

 

I agree with you, it's better when they use the logo completely instead of trying to do alternative facts. 

On 13/2/2017 at 3:59 AM, estrangedtwat said:

2016-04-23

Coachella, Indio CA

[Fourteenbeers]

11 minutes ago, Jane M. said:

@dgnr Found it: 

I agree with you, it's better when they use the logo completely instead of trying to do alternative facts. 

The Coachella litho is literally giving us the middle finger: Fuck you - we removed Izzy and Steven. 

[Archtop]

Well done @Jane M. that's what I was thinking of, I think it's funny they havn't tried to do something like this since that one, I remember quite an outrage about it at the time so perhaps they did decide that it just wasn't worth it.

I also agree the Huston litho was really good. 

[beautifulanddamned]

49 minutes ago, Archtop said:

.What I do wonder is, do you suppose that when they use the AFD cross which has the likeness of Izzy and Steven that they get some sort of payout? I know the 3 partnership owns a lot of the logos etc but would thier be clauses for  those images being reproduced in a new context?

Izzy and Steven won't ever get money from the skull images. The partnership owns the right to the artist's rendering now and even if they use the skulls in other contexts, legally there is not much Izzy and Steven can do about it.  The legalities of it are a little crazy, though.

If they used an old photograph of Izzy in the band from 1988 on a shirt they were selling he could sue them because it would go up against Izzy's personal "right of publicity." An artist's rendering is trickier. If they used a painted/drawn image of him that was a faithful representation that lacked any creative substance he could sue them for the same reason. However, the Appetite logo is not a faithful representation of Izzy, even if we all know it represents him. This is the legal wording:

“Another way of stating the inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the ‘raw materials’ from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question. … We ask, in other words, whether a product containing a celebrity's likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the artist's own expression rather than the celebrity's likeness. And when we use the word ‘expression,’ we mean expression of something other than the likeness of the celebrity.”

[Archtop]

3 minutes ago, beautifulanddamned said:

Izzy and Steven won't ever get money from the skull images. The partnership owns the right to the artist's rendering now and even if they use the skulls in other contexts, legally there is not much Izzy and Steven can do about it.  The legalities of it are a little crazy, though.

If they used an old photograph of Izzy in the band from 1988 on a shirt they were selling he could sue them because it would go up against Izzy's personal "right of publicity." An artist's rendering is trickier. If they used a painted/drawn image of him that was a faithful representation that lacked any creative substance he could sue them for the same reason. However, the Appetite logo is not a faithful representation of Izzy, even if we all know it represents him. This is the legal wording:

“Another way of stating the inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the ‘raw materials’ from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question. … We ask, in other words, whether a product containing a celebrity's likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the artist's own expression rather than the celebrity's likeness. And when we use the word ‘expression,’ we mean expression of something other than the likeness of the celebrity.”

OK, I guess the skull image wouldn't count then.

This is exactly why I find the use of the skulls difficult to support, I wonder if Izzy or Steven get to see the images ahead of time, out of respect. Steven was at the Houston show, It must be really odd for him to see it being used on current merchandise. 

[Tombstoneflavor]

The partnership is Axl, Duff, and Slash right? So they get royalties (as do izzy and Steven) but they also own the branding? I'm a little hazy on those details. 

[Fourteenbeers]

29 minutes ago, beautifulanddamned said:

Izzy and Steven won't ever get money from the skull images. The partnership owns the right to the artist's rendering now and even if they use the skulls in other contexts, legally there is not much Izzy and Steven can do about it.  The legalities of it are a little crazy, though.

If they used an old photograph of Izzy in the band from 1988 on a shirt they were selling he could sue them because it would go up against Izzy's personal "right of publicity." An artist's rendering is trickier. If they used a painted/drawn image of him that was a faithful representation that lacked any creative substance he could sue them for the same reason. However, the Appetite logo is not a faithful representation of Izzy, even if we all know it represents him. This is the legal wording:

“Another way of stating the inquiry is whether the celebrity likeness is one of the ‘raw materials’ from which an original work is synthesized, or whether the depiction or imitation of the celebrity is the very sum and substance of the work in question. … We ask, in other words, whether a product containing a celebrity's likeness is so transformed that it has become primarily the artist's own expression rather than the celebrity's likeness. And when we use the word ‘expression,’ we mean expression of something other than the likeness of the celebrity.”

Found this on the litho- thread. If the second one is a official litho, would it be the kind that would go up against personal "right of publicity".  It is basically a photo of the classic lineup. 

[beautifulanddamned]

14 minutes ago, Fourteenbeers said:

Found this on the litho- thread. If the second one is a official litho, would it be the kind that would go up against personal "right of publicity".  It is basically a photo of the classic lineup. 

That's a Rolling Stone picture. Izzy signed away the rights to it before the photo shoot. That's standard practice. Rolling Stone can use it or sell it without Izzy's permission. That's actually not a photograph, either, it's an artists rendering of it.  Which is where it gets tricky.

Edited July 10, 2017 by beautifulanddamned

[Fourteenbeers]

15 minutes ago, beautifulanddamned said:

That's a Rolling Stone picture. Izzy signed away the rights to it before the photo shoot. That's standard practice. Rolling Stone can use it or sell it without Izzy's permission. That's actually not a photograph, either, it's an artists rendering of it.  Which is where it gets tricky.

OK, good to know.

[Jane M.]

44 minutes ago, Tombstoneflavor said:

The partnership is Axl, Duff, and Slash right? So they get royalties (as do izzy and Steven) but they also own the branding? I'm a little hazy on those details. 

Yes. Here's more of that if you want to read about it: 

Bossy78 and Blackstar were kind enough to read the docs and post the most important stuff.

[Zoot]

3 hours ago, Archtop said:

No I don't think that would work either, It's hideous!

I think to try and tamper with something as iconic as the skull cross would be very difficult, didn't they use a fan created image early on in the regrouping depicting just Axl, Slash and duff and thier was a bit of an out cry then. 

I just think its wrong to use the old imagery relating to the current tour, as I find it odd that they still use original photos of the band promoting music sites.

I really wonder why they never launched new publicity shots of the band with the regrouping or just shots of  Axl, Duff and Slash together.

Axl often seems to be reminding us that Fortus, Ferrar (for blah blah years) and Melisa are in the band, but no promotional pictures to cement it. The PR surrounding this band has always been weird and never clean cut, but seriously what other band do you know have used a likeness of an old band member for a new line up. No matter the importance or history of the image.

I think it depends on how the images are used. Queen; for example, has Freddie's image everywhere and Adam even sings a duet with him during their show. I'm ok with that because it's more of a tribute than the band just trying to capitalize on Freddie's image.

With GNR I think the reason why it's so bothersome is we all know that Steven and Izzy wanted to be a part of this tour... So we have two founding members images being used as promotion all while they were shut out of the reunion. That's a pretty tacky move on GNR's part.

But if Izzy or Steven had declined the tour because they weren't interested and there wasn't any animosity would any of you guys still be bothered by the skull and cross logo being used? I don't think I would.