Richard Fortus Interview To Be Released Monday

[Limulus]

its more likely your spin with that "protecting yourself" crap. give me serious arguments about whats the real point leaving the partnership 12/31/95 to create a new one next day and making your band members employees only, when they've been about equal partners before? Axl gained even more power with that!

Seriously? Protecting yourself legally from not having to deal with possible future lawsuits isn't a good reason in your mind?

You still didn't answer! Are you or are you not aware of other bands arguing about who owns the band name?


/jarmo

Thats just a set-up reason to go on with his power move. Seriously, why ONE person from the group effort of AFD after all these years should own the b(r)and name? That's still is what is all about! That's where and why the money mainly is coming from - and Axl even openly agreed being a major factor of his $$$ intention! The "protecting yourself legally"-crap is all bullshit coming secondary, you dont seem able to (wanna) see or admit.

[D-GenerationX]

I don't see why we can't celebrate Axl having the vision to see that the name was crucial, and act on it.

Was it on the up and up?  I don't know.  Probably not.  Who cares though?  No one held a gun to those other guy's heads, I do know that.

Look, Bill Gates fucking robbed ideas from Xerox and Apple.  Know what we call him today?  A genius.

[jarmo]

Thats just a set-up reason to go on with his power move. Seriously, why ONE person from the group effort of AFD after all these years should own the b(r)and name? That's still is what is all about!

Because the other two who were left at the time didn't come up with it, they weren't there when the name was created. That's why.

The "protecting yourself legally"-crap is all bullshit coming secondary, you dont seem able to (wanna) see or admit.

I think you have issues admitting this. Imagine if something horrible had happened to one of them. There'd be legal issues with whoever had that person's split of the name.
Even without that, for the third time, are you aware of bands who have had issues with band members fighting over band names?



/jarmo

[Sosso]

Stone Temple Pilots when Scott left the band

[draguns]

I can see that Axl was concerned with the legalities if Slash or Duff had died at that time. Both were pretty messed up back then. I still completely disagree with the name being created, Jarmo. Yes, it was created before Slash and others came into the picture. However, NOBODY cared about Guns N' Roses before Slash  and others showed up. NOBODY cared until AFD came out. It turned the Guns N' Roses name into a household name.  So yes, a big part deals with money.

I'll always believe that the  name should have been retired. It would have been easier for Axl to release albums and create the music he wants. I think he could have had a Ozzy, Elton John, Billy Joel, Rob Zombie and Kid Rock like career.

[D-GenerationX]

Even without that, for the third time, are you aware of bands who have had issues with band members fighting over band names?

Of course we do, but that doesn't automatically makes how Axl went about it noble.

He was 100% right to want to have the rights to the name.  No one disputes that.  But you can still say that and concede it perhaps was not on the up and up.

And we shouldn't just focus on the legal aspects.  Yes, he did it all correctly legally.  But in terms of handling it on a personal human level?  Not so hot.

[mortismurphy]

There were legal battles regardless. There were battles over the authority of song licensing to films (2004) and Axl's switch to Black Frog (2005). The latter lawsuit also included an issue of an errant $92,000, which Slash and Duff claimed had been conned from them. There were also some issues regarding the licensing of merchandising at a similar time.

There is probably more litigation we do not know about. If the rumours that Slash stalled the DVD are true, there is another example. In an indirect way, you might also cite the Activision case.

Whatever the amendment of the partnership did, it did not remove legal issues between the three partners.

[jarmo]

NOBODY cared about Guns N' Roses before Slash  and others showed up. NOBODY cared until AFD came out. It turned the Guns N' Roses name into a household name.  So yes, a big part deals with money.

So if you invent something, and it only becomes popular later when it's marketed along with others, it's not your invention?




/jarmo

[mortismurphy]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

[Spirit]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

[mortismurphy]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

The reason he could put in that amendment was, because he merely, put in the amendment (and Slash and Duff were stupid enough to certify it).

[Spirit]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

The reason he could put in that amendment was, because he merely, put in the amendment (and Slash and Duff were stupid enough to certify it).

Then I think you're making Slash and Duff out to be even more stupid than I think they actually were. You're saying that Axl put that in without giving any reason... he just wanted the name.

I think he used the argument of coming up with the name.

[mortismurphy]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

The reason he could put in that amendment was, because he merely, put in the amendment (and Slash and Duff were stupid enough to certify it).

Then I think you're making Slash and Duff out to be even more stupid than I think they actually were. You're saying that Axl put that in without giving any reason... he just wanted the name.

I think he used the argument of coming up with the name.

Well you are discussing a completely different thing there. You are talking about Axl's personal justification for the amendment, not the technical legalities of the issue.

[Spirit]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

The reason he could put in that amendment was, because he merely, put in the amendment (and Slash and Duff were stupid enough to certify it).

Then I think you're making Slash and Duff out to be even more stupid than I think they actually were. You're saying that Axl put that in without giving any reason... he just wanted the name.

I think he used the argument of coming up with the name.

Well you are discussing a completely different thing there. You are talking about Axl's personal justification for the amendment, not the technical legalities of the issue.

So you think Axl felt he could just put that in there without having any justification to back it up?

You said yourself that "he may have created the name in 1985". I think he had his grounds covered knowing that he did create the name.

[mortismurphy]

The creation of the name is moot. The reason Axl owns the name today is because of an amendment made to the Partnership Agreement of either 1992 or 1993, not, because he may have created the name in 1985.

The reason he could put in that amendment was because he started the band with the name, and was the one coming up with it.

The reason he could put in that amendment was, because he merely, put in the amendment (and Slash and Duff were stupid enough to certify it).

Then I think you're making Slash and Duff out to be even more stupid than I think they actually were. You're saying that Axl put that in without giving any reason... he just wanted the name.

I think he used the argument of coming up with the name.

Well you are discussing a completely different thing there. You are talking about Axl's personal justification for the amendment, not the technical legalities of the issue.

So you think Axl felt he could just put that in there without having any justification to back it up?

You said yourself that "he may have created the name in 1985". I think he had his grounds covered knowing that he did create the name.

I am sure he had to justify it to himself; I am certain he felt he had a distinct 'reason' for doing it. 

Note well that the amendment makes no reference to the originator of the name,


- http://www.gnrevolution.com/viewtopic.php?pid=76537#p76537

[jarmo]

Is it possible there's multiple reasons? #1: He was in the band with the same name before the other two. #2: The other two weren't exactly living a healthy lifestyle #3: If something happened to them, they'd all spend years trying to solve the issue. #4: At the time, the other two thought it was just a band name that wasn't theirs since they weren't the ones who started the band (compared to say Road Crew) #5: Maybe they assumed there'd be no GN'R without them.


By the way, if three people know which one of them originated the name, you don't need to tell them that.


By the way, it's unfortunate, once again, that yet another thread about a current event is turned into a Dead Horse topic. I'm not completely innocent in this, but it's truly mind blowing how these topics are still the most interesting things to talk about.

I really suggest those of you, the two or three that love these topics say hello to my little friend: Dead Horse.

Unless you want to discuss this interview, you're free to do so in this thread. If you want to discuss the name issue, please, use the above link. Thanks.



/jarmo

[Sosso]

Guns N' Roses is a combination of the two band namens L.A. Guns and Hollywood Rose. Slash and Duff weren't present at that time. Case closed.

[Spirit]

I am sure he had to justify it to himself; I am certain he felt he had a distinct 'reason' for doing it. 

I know it's not mentioned specifically in the contract, but he would still need a reason for putting it in there in case questions was raised about why it was there.

We don't know if Slash or Duff questioned it (I have to think that they did, otherwise that's beyond stupid), but I'm certain Axl was prepared to defend the amendment.

[mortismurphy]

I am sure he had to justify it to himself; I am certain he felt he had a distinct 'reason' for doing it. 

I know it's not mentioned specifically in the contract, but he would still need a reason for putting it in there in case questions was raised about why it was there.

We don't know if Slash or Duff questioned it (I have to think that they did, otherwise that's beyond stupid), but I'm certain Axl was prepared to defend the amendment.

Concerning Slash and Duff, there is the coercion story, that Axl threatened to not go on stage at a certain Use Your Illusion concert if Slash/Duff did not sign the amendment. This story has been mentioned by both Slash and Duff, refuted by Axl, and keenly debated on most of the forums (except for this one).

[Spirit]

I am sure he had to justify it to himself; I am certain he felt he had a distinct 'reason' for doing it. 

I know it's not mentioned specifically in the contract, but he would still need a reason for putting it in there in case questions was raised about why it was there.

We don't know if Slash or Duff questioned it (I have to think that they did, otherwise that's beyond stupid), but I'm certain Axl was prepared to defend the amendment.

Concerning Slash and Duff, there is the coercion story, that Axl threatened to not go on stage at a certain Use Your Illusion concert if Slash/Duff did not sign the amendment. This story has been mentioned by both Slash and Duff, refuted by Axl, and keenly debated on most of the forums (except for this one).

Part 2 of the picture you provided (the one with the final signatures) shows clearly that they (Slash and Duff) signed that document almost a week apart. That's proof right there that Axl is telling the truth about that particular story.

I know some can say that they only had to sign the actual amendment (the yellowed text) at the same time, but that wouldn't make any sense as those signatures would mean nothing unless the final line is signed.