CALUCA Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"So, Axl say to his new band members:"Well, go to the rest room for a few hours because I want to make some money with my former bandmates."It's like you say to your new wife/husband: "Please do some dinner in the kitchen, because I want to make love with my ex-wife/husband in the bedroom."It's bullshit.remember one thing: all those guys are EMPLOYEES!!!!!! theyre not members.... he can do whatever he wants..... members of the band are just: Uncle A, Slash, Duff and Izzy... the rest, just employees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Estranged Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"So, Axl say to his new band members:"Well, go to the rest room for a few hours because I want to make some money with my former bandmates."It's like you say to your new wife/husband: "Please do some dinner in the kitchen, because I want to make love with my ex-wife/husband in the bedroom."It's bullshit.remember one thing: all those guys are EMPLOYEES!!!!!! theyre not members.... he can do whatever he wants..... members of the band are just: Uncle A, Slash, Duff and Izzy... the rest, just employeesAgreed but trust me your wasting your time convincing others of that truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeppelin Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Even the wording of the paragraph sounds stupid and unbelieveable. It says, "all members would make millions each.". Thanks for that groundbreaking information. That part seems out of place and very greedy to me. It's not like everyone thinks that a reunited GN'R would make a few cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Route66 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 I dont believe this shit but i think Slash is on his way back to GNR for something... Come on Ax talk to us This could still be the greatest day in rock history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wink Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 only one has a good lawyer?smells like bullcrap to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Route66 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 only one has a good lawyer?smells like bullcrap to menow now dont be so hasty fellow Gunner fan. Mr mercurial hasnt confirmed or denied anything. i dont think Axl did what Classic Cock says but...i am pretty sure Mr Slash has a contribution to make very soon IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SylvesterStallone Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Izzy isn't a member of the partnership either, he's just an employee. Ain't that a bitch? Axl cut out his best friend and the guy who wrote the best songs in GnR out of the partnership completely. Izzy has no connection with gnr anymore. That really sucks.You know the sad thing is the fans are getting fucked, like the ex-gunners always said, the ball is in Axl's court, he can make this reunion happen if he wants to, but the problem is Axl doesn't want to play ball and so as a result who loses? Us...the fans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Niveen Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 but the problem is Axl doesn't want to play ball and so as a result who loses? Us...the fans...Axl is gonna lose too... B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainX Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Why do you cling to something that you know would only be FOR THE MONEY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Niveen Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Why do you cling to something that you know would only be FOR THE MONEYEverybody does things FOR THE MONEY, including Mr Finck, Stinson, Brain, Reed, Pittman, Fortus and... Rose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PULPY Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Isn't the most recent Classic Rock the british albums one?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysoutparading Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"that's pretty sleazy on axl's part if it's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBear Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) Yes, we agree it's about rights to the back catalog being used in film, tv, etc, not royalties. You have shed some new light on it though. They really can't claim Axl ever left a partnership since he formed a new band, as they left the old one. Axl could just as easily say Slash lost rights by joining/forming VR with the same validity, none.Just a point of clarification. Leaving the band and leaving the partnership are two different legal entities. S/D claim they have Axl's letter of intent to leave the partnetship to start his new band/enterprise. Thus leaving them as the 2 sole remaining members of the GNR partnership, and thus in control of the GNR back catalog. That is the premise of their lawsuit if you read the brief they filed. Not sure how it will play out, but the fact it hasn't been dismissed or settled after all of this time lends credence to the fact their case is not frivilous, and may have some merit.Great posts man. You seem to be one of the few who understands exactly what is going on. Proof that it helps when you actually read the legal brief!In any case, this is an underhanded thing for Axl to do but it seems just like him to do it. It is ashame though, because if true it means that he isn't sincerely interested in a reunion. Edited March 31, 2006 by KBear Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcalldp Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 [In any case, this is an underhanded thing for Axl to do but it seems just like him to do it. It is ashame though, because if true it means that he isn't sincerely interested in a reunion.Ummm...if he actually did this, which I doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssiscool Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 lots of rumours these days perhaps there is some truth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChineseDemocracy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"that sneaky axlWait a minute......i thought axl already had the rights to the back catalogue?Axl owns the name Guns N' Roses, but doesnt own the exclusive rights to the back catalogue, that is shared between Slash/Duff/Axl and partly Steven and Izzy.Slash and Duff however own the publishing rights to the songs, Axl signed those away in return for the Guns N' Roses name. Axl has been trying to get those back for some time. Its all very divided now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosegarden78 Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Got my new Classic Rock magazine through this morning, lots of GNR articles so I suggest you pick it up.Anyway, page 12 says something along the lines."Axl attempted to re-unite the band with Slash, Duff, Izzy and Matt Sorum, for 2 shows in the UK one at Download Festival and one at Hammersmith, both would be filmed for a DVD and Live CD and all members would make millions each, all parties were interested in this reunion, but before they could sign on the dotted line, one of the members lawyers noticed in the fine print that it said by agreeing to these terms and conditions the rights and back catalogue of Guns N' Roses would go to Axl Rose, this halted all negotiations however rumours have still flied, we won't know what's happened until Download itself arrives"that sneaky axl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DirtyDeeds Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Wait a minute......i thought axl already had the rights to the back catalogue?In Axl's mind they are his (and rightfully so). But its still up to a judge or jury.Explain how rightfully so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChineseDemocracy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 A reunion would be nice, and it would make things sound a little more realistic. Buckethead left, Tommy is doing the Replacement thing, and Soul Asylum is lining up dates (which Tommy will probably play in mid April and June), a perfect entrance for Slash and Duff?Slash and Axl have been saying good words about each other, its very feasibile that they worked out their problems, it has to happen eventually.The only sticking point is that I dont think Slash would be able to play with the guy Axl slated to take his place (Robin Finck). I know Duff would do it if Slash and Axl were on board with it, but Slash wouldnt do it with Robin unless it was clear that Slash was the lead and Robin played rhythm, but that would bump Fortus out (unless there were two rhythm players).If we soon find out that Fortus/Finck are out of the band, then I would say that a reunion is more than likely happening.Velvet Revolver arent working on an album, Scott and Matt are doing solo projects. It could happen, with all the rumors it makes more an more sense as to a possible reunion. But Im willing to bet 80% of all the rumors are skewed facts, or there is information missing or overexaggerated.I think Axl may have tried to reunite the band at some point, it would only make sense, he knows the original band would make heaps more money and sell out stadiums, I think he learned that after he found out that he could only sell 5000 tickets and quarter fill arenas on his own.We will have to wait and see, once we see what the lineup looks like at Rio (or whatever concert is first), then we will know the truth, we wont have to wait too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickingthehabit Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Axl has the highest percentage of the back catalogue i believe.Wrong.The back catalogue is owned by Rose, Slash and McKagan.. they all share an equal percentage.If Guns N' Roses material is sought after for commercial release.. all three must be notified and consent to it's use..Since Rose failed to inform both Slash and McKagan of several lucrative offers.. they have sued for compensation. An example can be seen when producers of 'Black Hawk Down' asked for clearance on 'Welcome to the Jungle'. Rose informed them that he would only allow it to be used if his new band could re-record it.. thus swindling Slash and McKagan out of their royalties.The producers refused,.. and a lawsuit was filed.-Kickingthehabit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChineseDemocracy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Axl has the highest percentage of the back catalogue i believe.Wrong.The back catalogue is owned by Rose, Slash and McKagan.. they all share an equal percentage.If Guns N' Roses material is sought after for commercial release.. all three must be notified and consent to it's use..Since Rose failed to inform both Slash and McKagan of several lucrative offers.. they have sued for compensation. An example can be seen when producers of 'Black Hawk Down' asked for clearance on 'Welcome to the Jungle'. Rose informed them that he would only allow it to be used if his new band could re-record it.. thus swindling Slash and McKagan out of their royalties.The producers refused,.. and a lawsuit was filed.-KickingthehabitWrong again, Axl has no publishing rights to the songs, Axl was acting as if he did. He has no right to license the songs, Slash and Duff do. Axl acted as if he had the right to license the songs, and told producers to shove it unless he could rerecord them and take full royalties.So I guess your partly right, but Axl legally has no publishing rights for the songs. He gave them up to Slash and Duff in exchange for the Guns N' Roses name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDRM Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) FUCKI HAVE TO GO TO WHSMITHS! PULPY: no that was the last one Edited March 31, 2006 by JDRM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickingthehabit Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Axl has the highest percentage of the back catalogue i believe.Wrong.The back catalogue is owned by Rose, Slash and McKagan.. they all share an equal percentage.If Guns N' Roses material is sought after for commercial release.. all three must be notified and consent to it's use..Since Rose failed to inform both Slash and McKagan of several lucrative offers.. they have sued for compensation. An example can be seen when producers of 'Black Hawk Down' asked for clearance on 'Welcome to the Jungle'. Rose informed them that he would only allow it to be used if his new band could re-record it.. thus swindling Slash and McKagan out of their royalties.The producers refused,.. and a lawsuit was filed.-KickingthehabitWrong again, Axl has no publishing rights to the songs, Axl was acting as if he did. He has no right to license the songs, Slash and Duff do. Axl acted as if he had the right to license the songs, and told producers to shove it unless he could rerecord them and take full royalties.So I guess your partly right, but Axl legally has no publishing rights for the songs. He gave them up to Slash and Duff in exchange for the Guns N' Roses name.Wrong, you are..Rose recently signed a multimillion-dollar publishing deal with Sanctuary in terms of his percentage of the back catalogue..Slash and McKagan filed a lawsuit accusing him of changing the publisher of the group's copyrighted songs without their consent and pocketing the royalties.The Guns N' Roses partnership is a mutually binding agreement between Rose, Slash and KcKagan.. The three of them must consent to licensing the material..-Kickingthehabit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SylvesterStallone Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 (edited) What is the stake of Izzy and Adler? Didn't Axl once say that Adler was basically living off his royalties from Appetite? As far as I knew Izzy was totally cut out from anything gnr related for a small payout when he quit.... Edited March 31, 2006 by SylvesterStallone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChineseDemocracy Posted March 31, 2006 Share Posted March 31, 2006 Axl has the highest percentage of the back catalogue i believe.Wrong.The back catalogue is owned by Rose, Slash and McKagan.. they all share an equal percentage.If Guns N' Roses material is sought after for commercial release.. all three must be notified and consent to it's use..Since Rose failed to inform both Slash and McKagan of several lucrative offers.. they have sued for compensation. An example can be seen when producers of 'Black Hawk Down' asked for clearance on 'Welcome to the Jungle'. Rose informed them that he would only allow it to be used if his new band could re-record it.. thus swindling Slash and McKagan out of their royalties.The producers refused,.. and a lawsuit was filed.-KickingthehabitWrong again, Axl has no publishing rights to the songs, Axl was acting as if he did. He has no right to license the songs, Slash and Duff do. Axl acted as if he had the right to license the songs, and told producers to shove it unless he could rerecord them and take full royalties.So I guess your partly right, but Axl legally has no publishing rights for the songs. He gave them up to Slash and Duff in exchange for the Guns N' Roses name.Wrong, you are..Rose recently signed a multimillion-dollar publishing deal with Sanctuary in terms of his percentage of the back catalogue..Slash and McKagan filed a lawsuit accusing him of changing the publisher of the group's copyrighted songs without their consent and pocketing the royalties.The Guns N' Roses partnership is a mutually binding agreement between Rose, Slash and KcKagan.. The three of them must consent to licensing the material..-KickingthehabitPublishing rights are different than royalty rights. Slash and Duff can license the songs, but Axl still gets royalties. Read the lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts