Voice<\/em> 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 \u201cun-Australian\u201d.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Australia\u2019s 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\u2019s hit song had been bequeathed and who, if anyone, was making money from it. Given the political atmosphere, and the potency of Farnham\u2019s song and brand, getting the facts right on exactly what went down, and who might financially benefit is incredibly important.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
John Farnham allowed his classic rock anthem You\u2019re the Voice in the Yes campaign for free.<\/span><\/p>\n Unfortunately, the answer to any question about music rights ownership, royalties and licensing is complicated.<\/p>\n First, what do you mean by song? If we\u2019re talking about the words and notes on the page, You\u2019re The Voice<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n If you want a license to \u201csynchronise\u201d their song to a film or commercial, these four writers and their respective heirs and publishers need to say Yes first.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n The consensus within the Australian musical community was that Farnham\u2019s late manager Glenn Wheatley probably owned the copyright, given that he famously mortgaged his house to pay for the 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.<\/p>\n To that extent, John Farnham can certainly accept his share of praise and\/ or criticism for having \u201cgifted his performance of You\u2019re the Voice<\/em> for its use in the Uluru Dialogue Yes Campaign advertisements,\u201d as Wheatley\u2019s office trumpeted.<\/p>\n The existence of a separate \u201cmoral rights\u201d 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\u2019re The Voice<\/em> appearing in some fairly dreadful commercials in the conveniently forgotten past.<\/p>\n Contrary to many media reports over the weekend, this is by no means the first sync deal the song\u2019s rights holders have accepted. As pointed out by AFR<\/em> 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<\/em> and rather lamentable ads for chocolate and cars \u2014 the latter featuring Farnham himself, as a ghost. It\u2019s weird.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n An equal sum would have been earmarked for the songwriters. Neither Qunta nor Thompson\u2019s representatives responded to questions. But, unlike Farnham, it\u2019s less likely they would have donated their work to an Australian political campaign without fair payment.<\/p>\n In addition, \u201cthe songwriters would still get the APRA [royalty] whenever it\u2019s played,\u201d Morrison adds. \u201cAnd the [Sony] master would also pick up [a smaller royalty] too. It\u2019s only going to be short-lived. It\u2019s only six weeks. Maybe a few thousand\u2026. but it also brings the song back into everyone\u2019s consciousness\u2026\u201d which never hurts.<\/p>\n \u201cWe love the fact that he\u2019s done it. We love the fact that he\u2019s happy to stand on the parapet,\u201d Morrison says. \u201cBut it\u2019s more about attribution. We want to see the label attributed and we definitely want to see the songwriters attributed. The way it\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n \u201cAnd of course, we\u2019re always fascinated with the money. But you know, you\u2019re very lucky to ever find that out. Unless it\u2019s you yourself being paid. And then you don\u2019t want to tell anyone.\u201d<\/p>\n The Booklist is a weekly newsletter for book lovers from books editor Jason Steger. <\/i><\/b>Get it delivered every Friday<\/i><\/b>.<\/i><\/b><\/p>\n
Whispering Jack<\/em> album sessions that yielded his charge\u2019s signature hit.<\/p>\nMost Viewed in Culture<\/h2>\n
From our partners<\/h3>\n