Did John Farnham really ‘gift’ his song to the Yes campaign? It’s complicated

Save articles for later

Add articles to your saved list and come back to them any time.

It’s the biggest story in politics and entertainment this week. John Farnham’s bequest of You’re The
Voice to the Yes camp was a fist-pumping feelgood story for a campaign that was in sore need of a boost. For some on the No side, it was also cause for our 1987 Australian of the Year to be reappraised as “un-Australian”.

Meanwhile, Australia’s artistic community was hurtling down an entirely different axis of outrage and confusion. Songwriters and backroom music business figures have spent the last few days talking among each other to clarify exactly how Farnham’s hit song had been bequeathed and who, if anyone, was making money from it. Given the political atmosphere, and the potency of Farnham’s song and brand, getting the facts right on exactly what went down, and who might financially benefit is incredibly important.

John Farnham allowed his classic rock anthem You’re the Voice in the Yes campaign for free.

Unfortunately, the answer to any question about music rights ownership, royalties and licensing is complicated.

First, what do you mean by song? If we’re talking about the words and notes on the page, You’re The Voice belongs to British songwriters Andy Qunta [Icehouse], Chris Thompson [Manfred Mann], Queen/ Eurythmics backing singer Maggie Ryder, and the estate of the recently deceased Procol Harum lyricist, Keith Reid.

If you want a license to “synchronise” their song to a film or commercial, these four writers and their respective heirs and publishers need to say Yes first.

A second, separate copyright applies to any sound recording of that composition, in this case, the chart-topping, bagpipe-laden version by Farnham, made with producer Ross Fraser in 1986. Sync rights to that smash (as distinct from a cover version you might knock off cheap) need to be negotiated with whoever owns the recording. Traditionally, that entity is far more likely to be a record label than an artist like Farnham himself.

The consensus within the Australian musical community was that Farnham’s late manager Glenn Wheatley probably owned the copyright, given that he famously mortgaged his house to pay for the
Whispering Jack album sessions that yielded his charge’s signature hit.

But as it turns out, by whatever subsequent negotiations transpired, the master actually belongs to Sony Music Australia. Sony confirmed with this masthead that they have an agreement to share sync fees with Farnham for the song and that they both had waived them on this occasion.

To that extent, John Farnham can certainly accept his share of praise and/ or criticism for having “gifted his performance of You’re the Voice for its use in the Uluru Dialogue Yes Campaign advertisements,” as Wheatley’s office trumpeted.

The existence of a separate “moral rights” consideration is also relevant here. Normally, writers and featured performers can expect to be fairly consulted on film and advertising synchronisations. Which means that Farnham is equally to thank/ blame for You’re The Voice appearing in some fairly dreadful commercials in the conveniently forgotten past.

Contrary to many media reports over the weekend, this is by no means the first sync deal the song’s rights holders have accepted. As pointed out by AFR columnist Myriam Robin on Sunday, it turned up in 2001 for the Australian Electoral Commission, in many a B-movie, on Grand Theft Auto: Episodes From Liberty City and rather lamentable ads for chocolate and cars — the latter featuring Farnham himself, as a ghost. It’s weird.

Musician Lindy Morrison, former drummer with the Go-Betweens and long-serving artist representative on the board of the Phonographic Performance Company of Australia, loosely estimates that Sony and Farnham may have waived upwards of $100,000 on this deal.

An equal sum would have been earmarked for the songwriters. Neither Qunta nor Thompson’s representatives responded to questions. But, unlike Farnham, it’s less likely they would have donated their work to an Australian political campaign without fair payment.

In addition, “the songwriters would still get the APRA [royalty] whenever it’s played,” Morrison adds. “And the [Sony] master would also pick up [a smaller royalty] too. It’s only going to be short-lived. It’s only six weeks. Maybe a few thousand…. but it also brings the song back into everyone’s consciousness…” which never hurts.

“We love the fact that he’s done it. We love the fact that he’s happy to stand on the parapet,” Morrison says. “But it’s more about attribution. We want to see the label attributed and we definitely want to see the songwriters attributed. The way it’s been put in all the media is that John has gifted this song. Now, there are a lot more players than John who have got a lot more control over the rights than he does.

“And of course, we’re always fascinated with the money. But you know, you’re very lucky to ever find that out. Unless it’s you yourself being paid. And then you don’t want to tell anyone.”

The Booklist is a weekly newsletter for book lovers from books editor Jason Steger. Get it delivered every Friday.

Most Viewed in Culture

From our partners

Source: Read Full Article