You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
American copyright law allows the co owner of a song to grant a non-exclusive license to an interested licensee without the consent of the other song owners.
As Activision did not secure an exclusive license then Axl has no right to stop the license being signed off.
Check this out in an info section on www.wixenmusic.com/cowriters.htm
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
American copyright law allows the co owner of a song to grant a non-exclusive license to an interested licensee without the consent of the other song owners.
As Activision did not secure an exclusive license then Axl has no right to stop the license being signed off.
Check this out in an info section on www.wixenmusic.com/cowriters.htm
Then why even go to Axl and ask for his agreement? They wouldn't even have bothered if what you're saying is true.
If GN'R Music has an agreement that all three members need to sign off on a license, I think that would trump what you're citing.
Ali
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
Read up on the law itself Ali, not Axl's rantings and come back to me.
I have found the actual US Law Document on this, just Google "International Distributions Divergence of Co-Ownership Laws"
It says
"Co-owners are considered tenants in common and can assert
rights independent of each other. However, co-ownership also provides co-owners with indivisible sharing of the exclusive rights in the co-owned work. Consequently, a single owner of a co-owned work cannot grant exclusive rights to a work unless she has the consent of all parties.
He can, however, grant non-exclusive rights without the consent of his co-owners. In situations where exclusivity is not a concern, such as when one portion of a hit song is used in a commercial or when certain derivative uses are made (essentially, when the intent of the use of the work is non-exclusive), there is no need to get consent from all.
In such cases where the intent is for non-exclusive use, if one owner attempts to hold out for more money or just refuses to authorize use, but another owner approves use, then in the U.S. it is lawful to use the work."
The fact that "permission" came from GNR Music is irrelevant, GNR Music is just the legal vehicle to process the license to Activision. If Slash ordered them to do that and the license was non-exclusive, they have no choice but to do so.
However, if the partners in GNR Music had signed a legally binding document giving each other the right to vito another partners decision to license then there could be a case.
If that is the case, then Axl should sue Milligan for signing off on the licensing of the song without meeting the terms they agreed between each other around licensing to outside entities (i.e. the right to veto).
With respect to AV, they may simply have been trying to keep Axl happy and engaged but knew all along that they could use legal process to extract the song without Axl's personal terms attached.
I am unsure why somebody as perscriptive and detail orientated as your good self would see more credence in that ranting lawsuit against the cold, hard facts of the law which appear to state that Axl does not have a case.
Although I do definately concede that since it is going to trial Axl has some valid point but I think its a weak one and the case nay have only been granted to allow him the right to at least exert his legal rights to have the case heard.
Interesting stuff!!!
Further Reading:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Crea … /Joint.php
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
Read up on the law itself Ali, not Axl's rantings and come back to me.
I have found the actual US Law Document on this, just Google "International Distributions Divergence of Co-Ownership Laws"
It says
"Co-owners are considered tenants in common and can assert
rights independent of each other. However, co-ownership also provides co-owners with indivisible sharing of the exclusive rights in the co-owned work. Consequently, a single owner of a co-owned work cannot grant exclusive rights to a work unless she has the consent of all parties.He can, however, grant non-exclusive rights without the consent of his co-owners. In situations where exclusivity is not a concern, such as when one portion of a hit song is used in a commercial or when certain derivative uses are made (essentially, when the intent of the use of the work is non-exclusive), there is no need to get consent from all.
In such cases where the intent is for non-exclusive use, if one owner attempts to hold out for more money or just refuses to authorize use, but another owner approves use, then in the U.S. it is lawful to use the work."
The fact that "permission" came from GNR Music is irrelevant, GNR Music is just the legal vehicle to process the license to Activision. If Slash ordered them to do that and the license was non-exclusive, they have no choice but to do so.
However, if the partners in GNR Music had signed a legally binding document giving each other the right to vito another partners decision to license then there could be a case.
If that is the case, then Axl should sue Milligan for signing off on the licensing of the song without meeting the terms they agreed between each other around licensing to outside entities (i.e. the right to veto).
With respect to AV, they may simply have been trying to keep Axl happy and engaged but knew all along that they could use legal process to extract the song without Axl's personal terms attached.
I am unsure why somebody as perscriptive and detail orientated as your good self would see more credence in that ranting lawsuit against the cold, hard facts of the law which appear to state that Axl does not have a case.
Although I do definately concede that since it is going to trial Axl has some valid point but I think its a weak one and the case nay have only been granted to allow him the right to at least exert his legal rights to have the case heard.
Interesting stuff!!!
Further Reading:
http://depts.washington.edu/uwcopy/Crea … /Joint.php
I understand what you're saying, but I think you're neglecting the point I raised, that a contractual agreement made by Slash, Duff and Axl that would require agreement by all three before a license is granted. I am detail oriented and that is a key detail you are ignoring.
I'll point out that if what I was saying was not true, then Slash would not have been able to veto the use of WTTJ in Black Hawk Down irrespective of Axl and/or Tom Zutuat's plan for that song in that movie.
Ali
- Intercourse
- Rep: 212
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
I'm not ignoring your point, I just don't believe it counts.
If AV can go to court with this license agreement they clam they have from GNR Music then I think Axl is beat, he is taking the wrong people to court. The overarching rule of law is that either of the three men can license without asking the other two for permission.
If a song went out without an internal agreement between the three being honored then that's the fault of teh legal guardians of GNR Music's catalogue and not AV.
PS: I believe WTTJ was blocked because it was a version the new band recorded and they legally have to to ask permission of the original authors if they could release it as a cover.
The answer was no.
Releaseing another writers song is not the same as song owners issuing non-exclusive licenses.
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
http://gotgame.com/2012/08/06/no-doubt- … -gamespot/
August 6, 2012 - Drew Robbins
Activision is no stranger to being sued by high-profile bands. In fact, disagreements between the publisher and No Doubt, a group fronted by singer Gwen Stefani, go all the way back to 2009 when the group voiced its concerns over their implementation in Band Hero; according to the lawsuit, Activision performed outside of their contractual rights by allowing players to use avatars representing individual members of the band for songs other than their own works signed over to the game in the original agreement. A countersuit followed soon after with the company alleging that No Doubt had not done proper research on the Guitar Hero franchise and its use of rock-and-roll icons, a practice that existed for much of the franchise’s run prior to the release of Band Hero.
Speaking to Gamespot, Bert Deixler, No Doubt’s attorney, clarified the grounds on which his clients are accusing Activision and their motives for doing so. Deixler declares the publisher’s usage of a public-knowledge argument to be both “irrelevant” and “false”; even the company’s own executives, he says, have admitted to not fully understanding the process by which such celebrities are used and unlocked in their video games. The band’s representative then goes on to suggest that the agreement between the two sides only covered the use of characters in three songs (all of which were originally performed by No Doubt) and nothing more. One’s ability to separate individual members of the group and add them to others is another area in which Deixler suggests that Activision overstepped the bounds of their contract.
Due to recent victories in the legal struggle by No Doubt, the case is being moved up to a Federal Court. Deixler says that the idea of a settlement is not out of the question, but that he and the band hope their repeated success in the case will lead Activision to “apologize and promise to never mistreat artists in the manner they have mistreated No Doubt and countless others.”
The case between Activision and No Doubt will go before a jury on October 15 at the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Maroon 5 frontman Adam Levine is set to sue computer game manufacturers Activision over his portrayal in "Band Hero".
According to Reuters, the singer agreed that the game could feature his band's hit single "She Will Be Loved" and even performed the track for the manufacturers so they could motion capture his likeness.
UG plus: remove banner
Levine is unhappy however as the game not only allows users to use his avatar to perform his band's hit, but also use his voice to sing over 60 other songs and his avatar to sing in a variety of voices, including those of female artists.The singer has said had he known this, he would not have agreed as he does not want his voice used to sing songs that "would not have been chosen by him for recordings or performances". The suit also alleges that other artists were paid a higher fee than Levine received to participate in the game.
The singer has cited grounds of fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, violation of the common-law right of publicity, and unfair business acts or practices for the lawsuit and is seeking unspecified damages.
Thanks for the report to NME.com.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
This precedent will be important.
- killingvector
- Rep: 21
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
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
And that was one of my stipulations. If Milligan issued the licensing with the pre-conditions, then he is removed from third party action. The article, in particular, cites Activision's position that Milligan did not pass these along and, as a result, they were not bound to follow them.
But you are correct if it is acknowledged, or proven, that Milligan required preconditions for the licensing to be approved.
Re: Axl Rose Gets Mixed Result at Hearing in 'Guitar Hero' Lawsuit
I'm not ignoring your point, I just don't believe it counts.
If AV can go to court with this license agreement they clam they have from GNR Music then I think Axl is beat, he is taking the wrong people to court. The overarching rule of law is that either of the three men can license without asking the other two for permission.
If a song went out without an internal agreement between the three being honored then that's the fault of teh legal guardians of GNR Music's catalogue and not AV.
PS: I believe WTTJ was blocked because it was a version the new band recorded and they legally have to to ask permission of the original authors if they could release it as a cover.
The answer was no.Releaseing another writers song is not the same as song owners issuing non-exclusive licenses.
Not believing it counts is ignoring it, IMO, and ignoring it incorrectly. A written contract/agreement CAN supersede other laws/civil codes.
And, again, the issue is not whether or not the song license was granted without the agreement of Slash, Duff and Axl. The issue is whether or not the license was granted on certain pre-conditions which were subsequently violated.
Ali
