Irving Azoff On Plagiarism Lawsuit

Guns N' Roses manager Irving Azoff has responded to the Ulrich Schnauss lawsuit with this statement:

"The band vigorously contests these claims and intends to respond accordingly."

He added the band and production team’s legal reps will be responding SOON, as well.

YOU CAN DOWNLOAD AND READ THE FULL COMPLAINT HERE.

His full statement follows:

"The band believed when the record came out and still believes that there are no unauthorized samples on the track.

The snippets of ‘ambient noise’ in question were provided by a member of the album’s production team who has assured us that these few seconds of sound were obtained legitimately. Artists these days can’t read the minds of those they collaborate with and therefore are unfortunately vulnerable to claims like this one.

While the band resents the implication that they would ever use another artist’s work improperly and are assessing possible counterclaims, they are confident this situation will be satisfactorily resolved."

Rolling Stone

Guns N' Roses Sued for Plagiarism

Two independent record labels sued U.S. rock band Guns N' Roses for $1 million, claiming the group used portions of two songs by a German musician on their last album Chinese Democracy.

Guns N' Roses and Universal Music Group's Interscope-Geffen A&M label were sued by British label Independiente and the US arm of Domino Recording Company, who own the licensing rights to songs by German electronic musician Ulrich Schnauss.

Singer Axl Rose and Guns N' Roses band members and album producers copied portions of two of Schnauss' songs -- "Wherever You Are" and "A Strangely Isolated Place" -- for a song used on the band's last album called "Riad N' the Bedouins," according to the lawsuit.



The lawsuit, filed on Friday but made available on Monday, seeks $1 million in damages. A spokesperson for Interscope-Geffen A&M, owned by Vivendi's Universal Music Group, was not available for comment.



For Further Discussion: Guns N' Roses Sued For Plagiarism

Reuters

Slash N' Perla's Real Estate Lawsuit Update

Slash and his wife had mixed results in court today in their bid to recover more than $500,000 they say they lost in a transaction involving a Hollywood Hills home.

LA Superior Court Judge Mel Red Recana said he is leaning toward allowing a jury to decide whether Slash and his wife Perla deserve punitive damages from real estate agent Gregory Holcomb and Sotheby's International Realty.

However, the judge said he wanted to consider the matter further before making a final decision.

On a second issue, Recana said the couple's lawyers cannot begin collecting information on the defendants' financial worth unless a jury finds they acted with malice, oppression or fraud.

The Hudsons' lawyers wanted to begin gathering the financial data sooner in preparation for a possible punitive damages phase of the trial.

They allege Sotheby's and Holcomb acted in conscious disregard of the Hudsons' rights by not telling them they were entitled to a preliminary title report.

The plaintiffs' lawyers also argue the Hudsons should have been told they could have backed out of the purchase if they chose and gotten a refund of their $186,500 deposit before escrow closed.

Slash and Perla sued in November 2007. They allege they were not given proper disclosure about the home, including that it was much smaller than 7,800 square feet, as listed, and that there were other issues with the title to the property.

In a sworn declaration, Perla Hudson said she and her husband closed escrow on the home in January 2006 for $6.25 million, then sold it in November 2007 for $5.725 million without ever moving in.

The couple lost an additional significant amount of money in carrying costs on the property, while Holcomb received a commission of nearly $124,000, the Hudsons' court papers state.

In choosing a home, Perla Hudson stated she and her husband also were concerned about security for themselves and their two young sons, after being forced in the summer of 2005 "to obtain a restraining order against a deranged fan."

Defense attorneys say punitive damages should not be available to the Hudsons because there is no evidence anyone in authority at Sotheby's was responsible for approving anything Holcomb is alleged to have done wrong.

The lawyers also maintain there was no way their clients could have known that the MLS description of the home was incorrect and that it was not actually on a private street as the Hudsons had thought.

The trial of the suit is scheduled for Sept. 21.

CONTRA COSTA TIMES