You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
I don't think Axl can win this since he needs to prove that Milligan acted improperly then prove that Activision breached the agreement with GNRMusic. Milligan gave consent to Activision to proceed; Axl says he did improperly. Cases which rely on a thirdparty's wrongdoing are hard to judicate esp if that wrongdoing has not been legally proven elsewhere.
The middle man in this suit creates a burden which the judge may decide is not germane to the case against Activision: i.e. evidence against Milligan is not relevant to the allegations against Activision.
Axl needs to sue Milligan/GNRMusic if he acted improperly. Activision is within its right to proceed on any agreement made with GNRMUsic.
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
In the hypothetical we were discussing it's clearly relevant but whatever, you can call it an assumption if you want!
No disrespect Ali, but I just hope you are a Jarmo type character whose posting style is influenced by actual rewards given to him by the organisation, because if you're just a regular fan like myself....then damn...can't you see the Stepford Wives nature of everything surrounding Axl?
Are you familiar with the wrestling term Kayfabe? That's what these online conversations are like to me, people seem to stick to their characters regardless of events, and will spin events whatever way to suit it.
Sorry if that sounds offensive, don't mean it as an attack, I just really am starting to find this whole situation bizarre overall.
Where exactly did I say it was irrelevant?
In other words, what the hell are you talking about?
The vast majority of your post was bizarre to me as it has nothing to do (on the whole) with anything I wrote.
You're making no differentiation between a one-off reunion and on-going reunion, which in my opinion would imply an on-going association. My point is a judge or jury may make a differentiation between a unique, one-off event and an on-going reunion and it may not have much weight, if at all, on a determination of damages.
That is what I'm trying to say, if that wasn't clear before.
Ali
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
I don't think Axl can win this since he needs to prove that Milligan acted improperly then prove that Activision breached the agreement with GNRMusic. Milligan gave consent to Activision to proceed; Axl says he did improperly. Cases which rely on a thirdparty's wrongdoing are hard to judicate esp if that wrongdoing has not been legally proven elsewhere.
The middle man in this suit creates a burden which the judge may decide is not germane to the case against Activision: i.e. evidence against Milligan is not relevant to the allegations against Activision.
Axl needs to sue Milligan/GNRMusic if he acted improperly. Activision is within its right to proceed on any agreement made with GNRMUsic.
Why do you think that it needs to proved that Milligan acted improperly?
There is no allegation that Milligan acted improperly. The issue raised in the suit is not improper licensing action by Milligan/Sussman & Associates. They properly followed the instructions to grant a license, but the granting of the license was done under false pretenses (according to the suit) and the conditional agreement for the license was later violated by Activision, allegedly.
Ali
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
This boils back down to my point, whose fucking avatar would Axl have had in there instead..DJs?
Say that's what Activision did to shut Axl up and DJ's avatar was all over the game playing Jungle..would that represent some violation against Slash?
Is there any law against misprepesenting the image or likeness of a person who is legally recognised as the creator of a protected piece of work by subsituting the image or likeness of another over it?
In the suit, it states that Axl's request wasn't just to not have any image or likeness of Slash used. On page 6 of the complaint, he states that he wanted to images/likenesses of ANY former OR current members of GN'R used in the game.
In other words, he wanted no one, past or present, from GN'R to have their image or likeness in the game.
Ali
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
In other words, he wanted no one, past or present, from GN'R to have their image or likeness in the game.
Ok. Still where were they with their suit when the game came out? Surely the lack of action (other than one email) and the cashing of the checks means Axl was actually, in reality happy enough.
Does that kind of circumstantial evidence count in these cases?
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
In other words, he wanted no one, past or present, from GN'R to have their image or likeness in the game.
Ok. Still where were they with their suit when the game came out? Surely the lack of action (other than one email) and the cashing of the checks means Axl was actually, in reality happy enough.
Does that kind of circumstantial evidence count in these cases?
That lack of action is actually addressed in the suit, too. It's item 54 on page 10 of the complaint. I don't know if it means that the GN'R camp was "happy" so much as being open to another alternative than going to court.
Ali
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
killingvector wrote:I don't think Axl can win this since he needs to prove that Milligan acted improperly then prove that Activision breached the agreement with GNRMusic. Milligan gave consent to Activision to proceed; Axl says he did improperly. Cases which rely on a thirdparty's wrongdoing are hard to judicate esp if that wrongdoing has not been legally proven elsewhere.
The middle man in this suit creates a burden which the judge may decide is not germane to the case against Activision: i.e. evidence against Milligan is not relevant to the allegations against Activision.
Axl needs to sue Milligan/GNRMusic if he acted improperly. Activision is within its right to proceed on any agreement made with GNRMUsic.
Why do you think that it needs to proved that Milligan acted improperly?
There is no allegation that Milligan acted improperly. The issue raised in the suit is not improper licensing action by Milligan/Sussman & Associates. They properly followed the instructions to grant a license, but the granting of the license was done under false pretenses (according to the suit) and the conditional agreement for the license was later violated by Activision, allegedly.
Ali
I guess you didn't read the article closely enough:
GNR Music, which administers publishing rights to the band's songs, licensed Activision to use the big "Jungle" hit. In a series of e-mails sent to Activision after a written synch license was executed, Rose's reps objected to Slash's image being used as an "avatar." Activision went ahead with the game anyway.
In the case, Activision argues that its agreement was with GNR Music, and that "Rose had no authority to enter into a license for 'Welcome to the Jungle' in his individual capacity because he does not own the song or the sound recording."
Activision says Rose himself confirmed this by saying, "Unanimous approval by all three partners of GNR Music is required before any license to use Guns N' Roses music is given."
The synch license was signed on the band's behalf by Wayne Milligan, a licensing administrator at Sussman & Associates. Milligan does work for GNR Music, but it has been Rose's contention that Milligan was also acting as his own personal agent.
For Axl to prove that Activision broke their agreement with him, he needs to prove that Milligan acted in Axl's interest. But if Milligan ignored the agreement between Axl and Activision and issued the license without conditions, then Axl's beef is not with Activision b/c they had the legal right to proceed with the agreement in hand.
Under either scenario, Milligan is a third party now involved. Not good for Axl.
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
Ali wrote:killingvector wrote:I don't think Axl can win this since he needs to prove that Milligan acted improperly then prove that Activision breached the agreement with GNRMusic. Milligan gave consent to Activision to proceed; Axl says he did improperly. Cases which rely on a thirdparty's wrongdoing are hard to judicate esp if that wrongdoing has not been legally proven elsewhere.
The middle man in this suit creates a burden which the judge may decide is not germane to the case against Activision: i.e. evidence against Milligan is not relevant to the allegations against Activision.
Axl needs to sue Milligan/GNRMusic if he acted improperly. Activision is within its right to proceed on any agreement made with GNRMUsic.
Why do you think that it needs to proved that Milligan acted improperly?
There is no allegation that Milligan acted improperly. The issue raised in the suit is not improper licensing action by Milligan/Sussman & Associates. They properly followed the instructions to grant a license, but the granting of the license was done under false pretenses (according to the suit) and the conditional agreement for the license was later violated by Activision, allegedly.
Ali
I guess you didn't read the article closely enough:
GNR Music, which administers publishing rights to the band's songs, licensed Activision to use the big "Jungle" hit. In a series of e-mails sent to Activision after a written synch license was executed, Rose's reps objected to Slash's image being used as an "avatar." Activision went ahead with the game anyway.
In the case, Activision argues that its agreement was with GNR Music, and that "Rose had no authority to enter into a license for 'Welcome to the Jungle' in his individual capacity because he does not own the song or the sound recording."
Activision says Rose himself confirmed this by saying, "Unanimous approval by all three partners of GNR Music is required before any license to use Guns N' Roses music is given."
The synch license was signed on the band's behalf by Wayne Milligan, a licensing administrator at Sussman & Associates. Milligan does work for GNR Music, but it has been Rose's contention that Milligan was also acting as his own personal agent.
For Axl to prove that Activision broke their agreement with him, he needs to prove that Milligan acted in Axl's interest. But if Milligan ignored the agreement between Axl and Activision and issued the license without conditions, then Axl's beef is not with Activision b/c they had the legal right to proceed with the agreement in hand.
Under either scenario, Milligan is a third party now involved. Not good for Axl.
No, I read the article closely as well as the suit.
The contention has never been that Milligan issued the license without conditions. In fact on page 6, paragraph 30 of the suit filed by Axl's lawyers, it says that Milligan spoke to Brandon Young of Activision regarding Axl's concerns, and Young sent Milligan a follow-up e-mail confirming the agreement with the stated conditions for Axl's approval to license the song.
So, there is no issue with Milligan ignoring Axl's request for conditions needed for approval, or ignoring the conditions, for licensing the song. Milligan was aware of them. The issue still is whether or not Activision violated an agreement for getting Axl's consent to license the song. Milligan is a non-issue anyway because he wasn't the only person from the GN'R/Axl camp who spoke to Activistion, either Brandon Young or Tim Riley, about the conditions for Axl's approval of a license to be granted.
As far as the part about Axl's ability to enter into a license individually, that's besides the point. Activision still needed his agreement in order to get the license, and if they got his consent through violation of agreement, the basis for the suit still exists.
Ali
