Axl Rose loses $20m video game lawsuit

NEWCASTLE, UNITED KINGDOM - MAY 23: Axl Rose (L) and Frank Ferrer of American hard rock band Guns N Roses, performing live onstage at the Newcastle Metro Radio Arena, May 23, 2012. (Photo by John Burrows/Classic Rock Magazine) WWS. CONTACT: Future Publishing Limited 30 Monmouth St, Bath, UK, BA1 2BW +44 (0)1225 442244 licensing@futurenet.com www.futurelicensing.com, www.futureplc.com

Lost out: Axl Rose

Axl Rose has lost his court case against video game maker Activision.

The Guns n’Roses frontman had been battling the corporation since 2010, claiming they’d breached an agreement over his appearance in 2007′s Guitar Hero III: Legends Of Rock.

He said they’d been allowed to use classic track Welcome To The Jungle as long as former colleague Slash and his then-active band Velvet Revolver didn’t appear in the game. But when it was released Slash was the main image on the cover artwork, leading Rose to call his lawyers in.

He’d had demanded $20m in compensation, arguing that the song’s appearance helped the firm generate over $1bn in sales.

On Friday Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Charles Palmer threw out the last of the singer’s arguments, after having previously ruled out his claims of fraud and misrepresentation.

Meanwhile, Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler is celebrating the passing of a privacy law in Hawaii named after him.

The legislation, commonly known as the Steven Tyler Act, prohibits people from taking photos or videos of others in an offensive manner. The singer began pushing for action after being photographed with his girlfriend in his Hawaii home, saying the invasion of privacy had led his children to refuse to visit him there.

Tyler says: “The paradise of Hawaii is a magnet for celebrities who just want a peaceful vacation. As a person in the public eye, I know the paparazzi are there and we have to accept that.

“But when they intrude into our private space, disregard our safety and the safety of others, that crosses a serious line that shouldn’t be ignored.”

Opponents suggest the bill may be unconstitutional and may need to be refined, with the National Press Photographers Association calling it “well-meaning but ill-conceived.”