misterID wrote:

I like the Dead Horse video. It was fun, nothing earth-shattering. Same here. I liked it. I also thought it was funny seeing Lars lying in the chair, holding the garbage can to his face, because he was so shitfaced.

Yeah, I don't see how this is any different than the "Dead Horse" video, really.  That was a live footage video, too.  The only difference is that this video doesn't have the Axl-cam footage.

Ali

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

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

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.