Slash & Duff to sue Axl! part 2 (New info in Slash/Duff lawsuit)

[justynius]

I know there is already a topic started about the Slash/Duff lawsuit, but new information has become available which changes a lot and we probably needed a second topic anyway. The old topic has already gone 13 pages (with a lot of people complaining about having to read through all of the posts to catch up, most of which are irrelevant with the new information).

A copy of the actual lawsuit was posted on this forum by "Will" and answers a lot of questions debated in the original topic.....

http://celebrityjustice.warnerbros.com/documents/04/05/gnr.pdf

My response to follow....

[justynius]

If they can really prove he left the partnership in 95, which they claim they have a written document that can. Axl is potentially screwed and in for a world of hurt because he will essentially have lost control of his band from 85 until he releases CD with his GNR. Not good, not good at all.

It sounds like they CAN prove he left the partnership in '95. Apparently, he had to relinquish his partnership status in order to gain complete ownership of the GN'R name, and losing say in "Old GN'R" decisions was an unexpected corollary to that.

This is not the end of the world though. The lawsuit isn't even over ownership of the songs, it is over who can decide HOW they're used. Axl is still entitled to his portion of the benefits. Slash/Duff could only name five movies; I doubt a judge would grant them anywhere close to a monetary figure that Axl would even notice "losing" (if anything at all) - thus leaving the partnership rights...

If not for publicity, Slash/Duff are probably using this lawsuit so they will be able to undisputedly "approve" permission for Velvet Revolver to re-record the old songs, and then only allow the Velvet Revolver recordings to be used in movies. Thus, they are screwing Axl out of performance benefits the same way that he supposedly planed to screw them. In a worst case scenario in which Axl loses out on all accounts, we will have ridiculous versions of "November Rain by Velvet Revolver" appearing on the Sponge Bob Squarepants soundtrack.

The Greatest Hits album killed off any potential for Axl to release a successful album of re-recorded tracks with the new band. If Velvet Revolver IS declared to have full partnership rights and they do their own re-recordings, it won't hurt the GN'R name anymore than that ridiculous compliation tribute album that tried to make heavy metal remixes of songs like "Estranged" and "Patience." No one is going to make judgments about GN'R based on Velvet Revolver covers, especially with such a dramatically different singer. And that is IF Slash/Duff "win." I don't have any legal background, but I strongly suspect the owner of the Guns N' Roses name might be entitled to some kind of say in what albums/advertisements GUNS N' ROSES songs will appear.

BTW, kudos to MaoAxl for chiming in - your professional opinion is much appreciated. Doesn't look like many people have given you credit, but you have contributed as much to this discussion as the people providing the links. Now that the actual lawsuit is available, does that change anything from what you said before?

[Naupis]

Is there anyone on this board that is actually a certified lawyer that can give us some info on what is most likely going to happen now that we have a copy of the petition?

If Axl really did pull out of the partnership as they say he did and claim they can prove, would that essentially strip him of the ability to make GNR based decisions on the back catalog, videos, licensing and other things? Because from what I do know about the law, if that judge rule The original GNR partnership owns that stuff, Axl is up a river without a paddle and will have no legal recourse to get out of this.

[madagas]

It is simple. They will probably settle like Courtney and Grohl did. Money may not even change hands. Slash and Duff probably just want equal partnership with Axl in regards to business decisions made on the old material. Otherwise, we will have to wait for Axl's response. We really need to see the exhibits attached to the Complaint as well. The link did not provide those. I am not a lawyer, but have dealt with lawsuits for the past 12 years and am very familiar with the stages of a lawsuit, etc.

[Naupis]

Madagas -

There will be no settling. I think they are going for broke and want to hit Axl where it is going to hurt him most. If a judge rules that the partnership owns that stuff and that Axl pulled out, they are going to give him the Big Middle Finger and make his life as miserable as possible from here on out.

I agree that they may not get that much in punitive damages, but if the judge rules from here on out they control the Original GNR partnership that makes GNR decisions about old stuff like the back catalog and videos or whatnot, that is going to break Axl.....or light a fire under his butt to start a new chapter in his life that involves releasing albums and not trying to live off past glories by wanting to re-record songs.

[justynius]

Is there anyone on this board that is actually a certified lawyer that can give us some info on what is most likely going to happen now that we have a copy of the petition?

I think that is an excellent question, and something important to keep in mind at this time. Ninety-nine percent of us do NOT have legal backgrounds. It's better not to jump to any conclusions based on the lawsuit FROM Slash/Duff's side, likely with legal jargon we do not understand or are misinterpreting. The obvious purpose of a lawsuit is to present one side's case in the most favorable matter possible.

[Naupis]

justynius-

I totally get we are only getting their side of the story and of course it is designed to make them look good. The thing is though, we never knew Axl pulled out of their partnership, if true, then S/D may actually have a very legitimate right to what they're claiming based on what we do know about legal practice. It is all speculation, but based on what they have provided I would argue this is neither frivilous nor the publicity stunt others had originally thought it to be.  

[madagas]

Naupis, in all lawsuits the plaintiff claims everything, as much as possible. The complaint may not reflect what they ultimately want. It may settle, it may not. Way too early to tell-wait for Axl's response. My gut just tells me that they want equal rights to decisions made on the back catalog.

[Izzy]

Surely the worst that would happen is that the judge would also give Slash and Duff (as well as Axl) control on how songs were used - all this would mean is that GNR tunes would never be used again because they would never agree on anything.....

Anyway this all sucks

I want a new GNR album - not a new GNR lawsuit.....

[justynius]

If a judge rules that the partnership owns that stuff and that Axl pulled out, they are going to give him the Big Middle Finger and make his life as miserable as possible from here on out. I agree that they may not get that much in punitive damages, but if the judge rules from here on out they control the Original GNR partnership that makes GNR decisions about old stuff like the back catalog and videos or whatnot, that is going to break Axl

I don't know if I necessarily agree with you here. It would be one thing if they were suing for full property rights, but Axl still gets his portion for wherever the songs are used. There's only so many "bad" decisions they can make concerning the Old GN'R songs to "make Axl's life miserable," and with each bad decision they make they're just screwing themselves out of future money.

I also don't think they plan to "sabotage" the GN'R name if they win; more likely they want to be able to undisputedly re-record the Old GN'R songs with Velvet Revolver and only use the re-recordings in movie deals. Thus, cutting Axl's performance benefits and bringing minor publicity to Velvet Revolver (though I'm guessing most people have already heard all of GN'R's hits, and would associate the songs with a noticeable different singer as "covers").

Greatest Hits was just released, so no one (VR or GN'R) will be releasing an album of re-recorded tracks in the foreseeable future. I seriously doubt anyone is going to be making judgments about a band based on a movie their song is included in - especially when you have monumental hits like the Old GN'R songs which practically everyone has already heard.

There's not a whole lot of artistic potential with the songs - the only thing Slash/Duff would gain is the ability to sell out the old songs to every movie deal that comes along (in which case, Axl cashes in at the same time). Unless they're banking on outrageous punative damages (which seems an unrealistic expectation at this point), this is a rather pointless lawsuit. The only possible benefit is a little cash (relative to the money either side could make off of album sales) and a negliable amount of publicity.

[Naupis]

Madagas,

Again I see what your saying, but I don't think they want equal say, they want to stick it to Axl. They might be able to legally do that, and I think that is what they are shooting for. From what the brief said there were provisions about what would happen to one that pulled out of the agreement written into the contract they all signed, so I am going to assume their goal is to cut him out of the decision making process in regard to The Old GNR partnership if they can. This is a blood feud and I just don't think equal footing is what they want if the court says they can do better.

[justynius]

I totally get we are only getting their side of the story and of course it is designed to make them look good.

Didn't mean to address that response specifically to you, sorry if it was interpreted that way. Just wanted to point out that you raised a question that everyone on the board should think about, before writing this off for VR.

[Naupis]

I am not sure there is so much they want to do with the songs, and they won't re-record them. The thing they want is I think at least, to make it so that Axl can't do whatever HE wants to in future endeavors. That is what I mean by making his life miserable. It would eat at him not to be able to do what he wants, when he wants with the old GNR stuff. If he had to clear anything he wanted to do with them, they would let him do it unless they really stood to gain financially just for the principal of making his life difficult.

I know he is gonna get his money and get paid regardless, I am just arguing from their side, it is just about keeping him from doing what he wants to do whenever he wants to, because that would drive him nuts.

[kockstar99]

I think alot of this has to do with the Greatest Hits album.

1. Greatest Hits album was released as a "recoupment"
    or "punishment" for the delays on Axl Roses album.

2. Slash and Duff belive that the GH Cd track selection
    was shit and didnt want it released.

3. Slash and Duff belive they should not be punished or
    have thier "old GnR" music be used in that way as a
    punishment for Axl Roses new albums delay..

3. Slash and Duff belive they should have been included
    in the track slections as they were in the Live Era CD.

4. Slash and Duff by using the movie examples are
    trying to show that Axl was thought to be the
    sole member with a say in "old GnR" the intended  
    victim of the Greates hits album and was punished
    and they were also but for somthing they have no
    control over (axls new album)


This will not affect Axls new band or VR.. This is fallout for the GH and they want to be included on all "Old GnR"
releases. like the GH cd, uses of the songs on movies, compalation CD's etc....  

So in sumary Slash and Duff were indirectly punished for the delay in Axl's new CD.  They dont belive that is fair and dont want it to happen again.

Thats what i can gather from reading the Complaint.

[Naupis]

So in sumary Slash and Duff were indirectly punished for the delay in Axl's new CD.  They dont belive that is fair and dont want it to happen again.

Thats what i can gather from reading the Complaint.


That is an excellent observation Kockstar. Which is why I am beginning to believe this is more than a publicity stunt, but more about securing their future interests in GNR and the back catalog. I just so happened that this whole greatest hits thing flaired up right as they were releasing their album.

[rckn]

I have been following this board about four years now. I discovered the band in 1986, when I got this japanise ep that was Live like fucking suicide. I have been following the story about 18 years now, so I know the history as well as the present. I have a idea about the future, but that?s not the question now.

I think that Madacasgar and The Blues are simply masterpieces, something that you can not hear these times. The band for me is Hanoi Rocks that I discovered in 1980. That is another story too, but I strongly recommend that band to anyone, who want?s to understand the early GNR. Great rock! Briliant live!

I?m a lawyer.

I have read the complaint once and I have some ideas how it?s gonna go.

Claim. Axl left partnership of GNR in 1995.
 
- I would like to know the paper they made back then. If Duff ?n Slash has got somekind of power to use old GNR stuff, why haven?t they? Axl left as they claim, they should have got the power back then and should have it now.
Is is really so that there is no deal of old GNR cataloque? Is it possible that the didn?t even think about that back then? Hmmm well...? What do you think?

Claim.  Axl got the name.

-This is true. Is it possible that he left the GNR but got the name? Company without the name, what the fuck is that? Was it a company, deal or what? This is very important, because it?s their job to show that they had the power. (that they never used.) Maybe they didn?t even know that they had power.

Claim. Axl left GNR

-Different thing that partenership of GNR. Slash and Duff could no longer perform as GNR? Well, we all know that Slash left 1996 and Duff 1998. They left. That is what they have said many times and in many interviews. Legally it is ofcourse different but they left.

This is question about contracts. Do you honestly believe that Axl haven?t consulted a lawyer in 1992 or 1995? Or now?

There will be a answer from Axl?s side. Then we get to know answers to all above. Anyway, I think that songs that Axl have written will be safe. There won?t be a speedmetal version of November rain or Rocked queen. Rights belongs to one who wrote the songs.

That?s it, by the way there?s  shit loads of legal bullshit on that complaint which made it allmost impossible to read. This means that it?s also possible that I didn?t understand it at all. Also I don?t know anything about US legal system, but I believe that there isn?t big differences about claims and proofs to this system that I know.

Axl, please don?t re-record mr bucketheads parts, ?cause that wait will be to long. Patience is a good quality for GNR fan, but enough is enough. Only way that you are able to hit, is the release of CD. It is the time.

[Annie]

 :rant:I think this is directly related to the success of the GREATEST hits cd. It all comes down to money and I always knew that Slash was full of anger about the money.

[providman]

If they can really prove he left the partnership in 95, which they claim they have a written document that can. Axl is potentially screwed and in for a world of hurt because he will essentially have lost control of his band from 85 until he releases CD with his GNR. Not good, not good at all.

It sounds like they CAN prove he left the partnership in '95. Apparently, he had to relinquish his partnership status in order to gain complete ownership of the GN'R name, and losing say in "Old GN'R" decisions was an unexpected corollary to that.

This is not the end of the world though. The lawsuit isn't even over ownership of the songs, it is over who can decide HOW they're used. Axl is still entitled to his portion of the benefits. Slash/Duff could only name five movies; I doubt a judge would grant them anywhere close to a monetary figure that Axl would even notice "losing" (if anything at all) - thus leaving the partnership rights...

If not for publicity, Slash/Duff are probably using this lawsuit so they will be able to undisputedly "approve" permission for Velvet Revolver to re-record the old songs, and then only allow the Velvet Revolver recordings to be used in movies. Thus, they are screwing Axl out of performance benefits the same way that he supposedly planed to screw them. In a worst case scenario in which Axl loses out on all accounts, we will have ridiculous versions of "November Rain by Velvet Revolver" appearing on the Sponge Bob Squarepants soundtrack.

The Greatest Hits album killed off any potential for Axl to release a successful album of re-recorded tracks with the new band. If Velvet Revolver IS declared to have full partnership rights and they do their own re-recordings, it won't hurt the GN'R name anymore than that ridiculous compliation tribute album that tried to make heavy metal remixes of songs like "Estranged" and "Patience." No one is going to make judgments about GN'R based on Velvet Revolver covers, especially with such a dramatically different singer. And that is IF Slash/Duff "win." I don't have any legal background, but I strongly suspect the owner of the Guns N' Roses name might be entitled to some kind of say in what albums/advertisements GUNS N' ROSES songs will appear.

BTW, kudos to MaoAxl for chiming in - your professional opinion is much appreciated. Doesn't look like many people have given you credit, but you have contributed as much to this discussion as the people providing the links. Now that the actual lawsuit is available, does that change anything from what you said before?

HeHe, you crack me up, dude. You Axl people are FOREVER creating scenarios in your heads which in some way  makes the old members look bad & poor, poor Axl looks like an aggreived party.

Axl let Paradise City be used in that piece of crap flick Real Cancun, & yet you bitch & moan about how all Slash & Duff want to do is exactly what Axl did - only you always somehow condemm Slash & Duff, but ALWAYS give Axl a pass.

Again, let me repeat. You THINK Slash & Duff want to release GnR music to be used in crap movies. You condemm them for that, even though Axl did the EXACT SAME THING, which, apparantly is hunky dory to you.

And before someone chimes in that Slash & Duff wanted to release the music for Old School, They Were Soldiers, etc..., I know they wanted to.  Thats not the point I'm making. You all criticize them for wanting to do that, but give your boy Axl a pass on Real Cancun, then make up a ridiculous scenario in your head about VR re-recording GnR songs(something Axl wanted to do & did, BTW) for Spongebob Whatever just to screw poor, poor Axl.

Hypocrites.

[jarmo]

They used the phrase "original GN'R" in that document.

Axl owns the name GN'R and it seems like they were trying to show that there are two GN'Rs.  The old/original band which made the records and the new one which hasn't released anything.

Can Axl sue them if he thinks they use the GN'R name, which he owns, to get business advantages or anything similar? They're using "his" name in order to promote themselves or whatever. Can you use somebody else's name to market yourself / your products?  



The reason I'm asking is because, didn't Gilby sue GN'R because they used his name?


This whole thing might take a while....  



/jarmo

[Naupis]

Well, according to their brief, Axl sent them a written notice that that was effective Dec 30, 1995 which announced his intentions to leave the GNR partnership and start a  new band under the same name. I am not a rocket scientist, but I have to believe such a document if it exists is explicit proof that Axl pulled out of the partnership. This would create both an Old GNR partnership which Axl was no longer part of, and a New GNR corp with Axl as the sole owner. The tricky thing in this case is what party is privy to make decisions about the use of old materials. If it is ruled that the old partnership makes those decisions since Axl is in a new company, then he is going to have some problems.