Ed Performing On New Years Eve, Atlanta Options

[briburge]

I doubt Ed has much to do with it on a practical level, but his management sure does and they will use it as long as they can.

Bri, surely you realize the difference between "of Live" and "formerly of Live." Ed is only one of those things.

I get it from a technical standpoint but who really cares. All of those hair bands have this argument all the time. Ratt Warrent etc go out with different incarnations of the band and the lead singers go out with the formerly title. Seems silly to make this an issue.

[Badman]

I can imagine Ed asking Jesus for forgiveness before playing on the same stage with a group called naughty by nature.

[Hoodstock]

I can imagine Ed asking Jesus for forgiveness before playing on the same stage with a group called naughty by nature.

Hey ... where the hell have you been?

[dancing queen]

that poster is hideous on so many levels, not the least of which is the odd pairing of Ed and NbN.
whoever does graphic design for whatever that poster is for should be shot.
I'm quite sure Ed himself has nothing to do with the fact that the posters mention Live. I'm sure his management knows. I would imagine (and I'm just speculating) that until Live announces a new lead singer, ed's management is fine with the current posters, thinking that he's "of Live" until someone else is announced... I'm sure we'll immediately see "formerly of Live" after that.
Legally, I have no idea if/when it becomes an issue. It will, I'm sure, when the new singer is announced if his posters don't start saying "formerly"

[thefunkyredcaboose]

I get it from a technical standpoint but who really cares. All of those hair bands have this argument all the time. Ratt Warrent etc go out with different incarnations of the band and the lead singers go out with the formerly title. Seems silly to make this an issue.

I personally don't care what Ed's management does, I was more curious if it would become an issue for the other guys (or if it already is one). Once Live really gets cranking again it will be a lot more important so that the two groups are distinguishable in a promotional context.

[Pokey]

Surely Ed can't be ignorant to how he's being booked. Whilst it may not be his idea (or maybe it is, only speculation) you'd think your integrity as a person who professes to be good and true would be to say "hey I shouldn't be booked this way anymore guys.." but we all know he's not going to initiate that conversation.

[FishOutaWater]

I think that Ed should be slapped with a temporary restratining order to cease this activity. If I get fired from my job at a prestigious employer, I can't go around doing public speaking and writing articles and passing out my business card with my former employer's name on it, passing myself off as still being employed by them. Particularly if trading on that name accrues commercial and financial benefit to me and I knowingly and intentionally do so (or tacitly approve it or acquiesce as to its use) for personal gain. On top of that, Ed's former band, Live, could be commercial harmed by this activity to the extent that the public is deceived into thinking that Ed is still with the band and Live has a harder time communicating clearly that Ed is no longer with Live, that Live is moving on, and Live has a new singer. This kind of advertising will create confusion and dilute Live's message that it is new, it is moving on, and it has a new lead singer. They will have a hard enough time pivoting away from Ed without having Ed out their billing himself as the singer of Live and identifying himself with a band with which he is no longer associated. It's yet another form of stealing. Stealing money, stealing royalties from the publishing of his solo performance sales, and stealing the good name and reputation and good will of the band Live, which he does not have the legal right to use. That kind of behavior is not very Christian and it is not just business. It is unethical.

This post has been edited by FishOutaWater: Oct 10 2011, 9:48 am

[dangum]

Is there any official statement from CCP that Ed is no longer part of Live? The only thing I've seen is a blog post by Chad T and perhaps something on Facebook.

Until Ed's replacement is announced, I don't have a problem with Ed being promoted as being "from Live".

[FishOutaWater]

I have been under the impression (to some extend from OutToDry's posts here) that the legal separation has technically occured. If that is true, then that's the issue.

[SJN1279]

I have been under the impression (to some extend from OutToDry's posts here) that the legal separation has technically occured. If that is true, then that's the issue.

A statement from OTD is not a legally binding document. If there was a real issue, Ed wouldn't be allowed to be billed as Ed Kowalczyk of LIVE or LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk.

If/when a new singer is announced, he can be billed as "Ed Kowalczyk-original lead singer of LIVE" and do just fine. It really isn't a huge deal.

[Merica]

A statement from OTD is not a legally binding document. If there was a real issue, Ed wouldn't be allowed to be billed as Ed Kowalczyk of LIVE or LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk.

If/when a new singer is announced, he can be billed as "Ed Kowalczyk-original lead singer of LIVE" and do just fine. It really isn't a huge deal.

FOW never said it was, though. Just that he believes something to be the case, in part due to posts by OTD.

[World Dreamer]

A statement from OTD is not a legally binding document. If there was a real issue, Ed wouldn't be allowed to be billed as Ed Kowalczyk of LIVE or LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk.

If/when a new singer is announced, he can be billed as "Ed Kowalczyk-original lead singer of LIVE" and do just fine. It really isn't a huge deal.

He could be billed as a lot of things.

[FishOutaWater]

A statement from OTD is not a legally binding document. If there was a real issue, Ed wouldn't be allowed to be billed as Ed Kowalczyk of LIVE or LIVE's Ed Kowalczyk.

If/when a new singer is announced, he can be billed as "Ed Kowalczyk-original lead singer of LIVE" and do just fine. It really isn't a huge deal.

He's not out when they announce a new lead singer. He's out when he is removed from the legal entities and management structure of Live. Has that happened yet? It sounds like they are keeping that private. If that has happened, and Ed is still billing himself as though he is still the lead singer, then that's pretty shady. If you read between the lines of OTD's posts, it is a real issue for CCP and it sounds like they are trying to take action. I think that OTD knows more about the subject than most of us. Just a hunch.

[zmanpga]

ya, spill the beans there OTD

[OutToDry]

answers lie within this board, please use your skills to find them.

crumbs..

http://www.fansoflive.com/forums/index.php...indpost&p=85351

...but beware....some responses may have to move to another thread.

This post has been edited by OutToDry: Oct 10 2011, 1:04 pm