It sounds like the CBC corporate lawyers who do the negotiations lost track of the big picture for HNIC and the goal of keeping the song.

It sounds like their goal became simply to beat down the composer and win a negotiation.

Somebody up the chain of command at CBC should have been riding herd on their lawyers.
CBC got what it deserved.

In the end, in a few more years, CBC will lose hockey completely, and Rogers and TSN will have all the Canadian hockey coverage. 

And the fans will be better off.

Posted by w2j2 on 06/14/08 at 02:03 PM ET

Isn’t it a tad ironic that CBC would appear to be suggesting that the song is meaningless, despite it’s history and our attachment to it, all the while forcing us to endure more and more Bob Cole, as past his prime as he is, because he is the voice Canadians are used to hearing and is a tradition worth sticking with? That would almost suggest that they want to be rid of the song to save themselves some money, and that they keep Cole because they’ve already got him and they can explain his imperfect aging by claiming to be holding true to tradition.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 06/14/08 at 02:45 PM ET

Thanks for digging this up.  It would be interesting to hear CBC’s response, because as it stands nothing seems to add up.

As to the question of fairness: It’s simply disingenuous for Dolores Clamen (or her daughter) to suggest that it was unfair for the CBC to not pay licensing fees. 

When someone commissions you to write a song they will pay you to write the song for them, but they assume all rights to your song.  It’s as true today as it was in the 60s.  It was only thanks to a loophole in her 60s-era contract with the CBC that granted Dolores Clamen the licensing rights to a song the CBC payed her to write.  If the letter of the contract matched the spirit of the contract, she wouldn’t have been entitled to anything more than the initial fee she charged for writing the song.  Clearly that’s all she expected, until some lawyer found the loophole in her contract.

CBS News ran into the same problem with their long time theme song, and they eventually dropped it for a new song with proper licensing, not because they can’t afford to pay some old song writer $1000 each time the song is played, but because it’s simply not acceptable to have such an important part of your show’s identity be held hostage by a third party thanks to a loophole in a poorly written contract from the 60s.

Posted by s2 on 06/14/08 at 05:39 PM ET

Now, THAT is what I call journalism.  Nice work on getting the other side of the story so we can all make better judgments as to how we feel about this whole sordid tale.

Posted by GZ Expat on 06/14/08 at 06:41 PM ET

Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, who bullied who and who is greedy, it’s the game that is important and not the song.

I’m certainly going to miss the song but that won’t matter once the game starts.

Posted by Ted from Innisfil, Ontario on 06/14/08 at 06:47 PM ET

S2:  “When someone commissions you to write a song they will pay you to write the song for them, but they assume all rights to your song.”

Absolutely true… but it certainly depends on the specific contract. I’m not sure how it compares to the music industry, but I have some limited experience with this in writing jobs. 

There are things I write for other people where my name never shows up, and I’m simply hired to produce material for them and they acquire the rights to it completely. Ghost writing, I suppose you’d call it, and I’ve been paid out up front. But in most situations, I’m contracted to write something while retaining my own copyright (whether my name is on it or not); there is simply an agreement in place with the company that they have use of the material over a period of time (or forever) on specific media platforms. I have dealt with at least two major online MSM sports news companies this way.  The idea is that it protects the writer from someone profiting from their work output in a way that wasn’t originally intended.

In the case of Claman’s situation, it sounds like you know more than I do about her original agreement, and I certainly can’t speak to the ‘spirit’ of that contract.  Perhaps Ms. Morris will address your point, though.  I’d be interested myself.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 06/14/08 at 06:49 PM ET

Details of how things worked re licensing of Dolores Claman’s Hockey Theme song have been published in several places.

The Globe and Mail has chronicled: “She composed the Hockey Night in Canada theme in 1968, on contract for a Toronto advertising firm. Because the song was classified as an advertising jingle, she did not get residuals. Instead, she was paid a one-time creative fee of $800. Her composition was performed by a 20-member orchestra; ironically, the musicians were paid union rates each time the song was used on air.

“In the early 1970s, Ms. Claman’s music was reclassified as a ‘theme’ after the CBC began using it as the standard introduction to Hockey Night in Canada, meaning that she was entitled to music-use licence payments. She said the CBC paid between $2,000 and $10,000 each year. She believes the average was about $4,000. That changed in 1993, after she connected with Toronto agent John Ciccone, who advised her to license the song. After that, she was paid approximately $500 per broadcast, yielding a gross annual income estimated at $30,000 to $45,000.”

Maclean’s reports that when the song was first created and chosen above four other jingles, for the program yet to be named Hockey Night in Canada, despite Director of the CBC broadcast Ralph Mellanby being “in favour of offering Claman $15,000 to release her claim to it, no one else seemed worried about future licensing disputes.”

And, so, Ms. Claman retained her rights to the Hockey Theme and any derision in her direction is misguided if not mean-spirited. When, decades later, her agent discovered a raft of unauthorized/ulicensed and unpaid usages by HNIC things ended up before the courts.

The Hockey Night in Canada Litigation notes that: “On May 29, 2008 a mediation was conducted before former Ontario Superior Court Justice George Adams.  The mediation did not result in a resolution of the legal proceeding.”

Within days of that failed mediation, we all heard the news about the Hockey Theme song dispute, the “ultimate Canadian Idol” contest, and, within a few more days, the Hockey Theme song moving to CTV.

Tony Agostini, Senior Director of CBC TV Network Sports, in his sworn testimony ~ Examination for Discovery Transcript #1 and Examination for Discovery Transcript #2 acknowledges years of unauthorized and not properly paid usages (for the NHL”s Centre Ice Package and various other, including international, broadcasts) of Dolores Claman’s song.

A central rationale, as stated in Mr. Agostini’s examination for discovery, for these repeated violations is that the CBC believed it would eventually make such agreements and/or may legally required payments to Ms. Claman. All at some unspecified date - which never arrived, despite years of Ms. Claman seeking fair payment.

A reading of the facts makes it clear who’s to praise and who’s to blame here.

Posted by Adrian from Salt Spring Island, Canada on 06/14/08 at 07:50 PM ET

Ms. Claman was hired to do a job, was paid to do that job, and years later decided to go back looking for more money because lawyers found a way for her to do so.  No-one approached her initially about renting HER song.  CBC hired her to write THEIR song.  If I pay a contractor to build my house, it doesn’t become HIS house.  I don’t end up renting it from him.  I hire a professional to create something for me and it is mine.  If I pay an artist to paint my portrait, it’s MY portrait --- I don’t keep paying for it every year.  Ms. Claman was paid to write a jingle, received $800 for a day’s work (good money now, let alone in 1968) and was satisfied with that.  Years later, the courts declared that the jingle she had written and been paid for was now a “theme” and she went back and sought more money for work she had done years earlier… a lot more.  She began getting paid 10 or 20 times as much, per year, as she had originally agreed to accept.  Then she got an agent and got really greedy --- seeing a way to turn one day of wrok in 1968 into a lifelong payday.  Shame on her.  The song didn’t make hockey popular, HNIC made the song popular.  Every thing that song has ever brought her (including CTV’s new blood money) is because of and owed to HNIC.  Would anyone know (or like) that song if it wasn’t played by CBC before every HNIC game?  Of course not.  It is, in and of itself, not much of a song.  The theme from “Friends”, okay, kinda catchy.  The theme from “Cheers”, fair song, but wouldn’t sell many albums.  The song Ms. Claman wrote?  Nothing without HNIC.  NOw the ungrateful gold-digger has taken the fame HNIC gave her and used it to attack them and to sully the CBC and HNIC.  Shame on her and on her defenders.  Remember, this is a woman who agreed to write a song for the CBC for $800, and years later went back and demanded more money --- eventually receiving a total of somewhere around half a million dollars.  Do you think, if they had been told the price going in, that CBC and HNIC would have bought the song in the first place?  They were offered a song for $800 and bought it.  Then, over years, were coerced into paying $500 000 because they were already invested in the song and had already established it as their theme.  Dirty pool.  Once again, shame shame shame on anyone who sides with Ms. Claman.

Posted by Dean Pearson from Hamilton, Ontario on 06/14/08 at 08:26 PM ET

Thank you for that information and those links, Adrian.  Excellent additions to this post and greatly appreciated.

Posted by Alanah McGinley from British Columbia on 06/14/08 at 08:27 PM ET

De rien, Alanah. You’re most welcome ( :

I’m still absorbing Trevor Linden’s resignation, or, I’d be all over your site for Canuck chat!

I love music. I love hockey. I love the CBC. So, naturally, this story is fascinating. (And I spent 15 - 20 years working in the fields of journalism and law. It’s exciting today to see how the data-rich internet makes research so fluid. People may not want to base their opinions on the facts of a matter - but, there’s little excuse any more to not be informed - providing you have web access.)

I remember watching CBC hockey broadcasts before the Theme Song was created. That’s when Tim Horton was king of the Maple Leaf blueline and not the creator of a donut domain. It’s been quite the journey.

(I wonder if the folks who have such a problem with the standard payment of royalties to musicians, inventors, et al also feel such contempt for the concept and practice of franchising?)

A couple of new, articles open up further and/or different territory - the first offering thoughtful analyses of the big picture, and the second, a stimulating look at how much music matters:

How CBC Lost Its Hockey Theme and Hockey theme song taps Canadians’ primal needs

Thanks for your blog - and Happy Father’s Day weekend, to all!

Posted by Adrian from Salt Spring Island, B.C. on 06/14/08 at 08:57 PM ET

If I pay a contractor to build my house, it doesn’t become HIS house.

You are missing the fundamental point here. The proper comparison, houses to HNIC theme-wise, would be that the contractor who builds your house is the musician who plays the music. Think about it, you pay a musician to play music, and once he’s done your deal is over. You can’t ever benefit from his music again. But the song itself is intellectual property, much as building designs and patents are. CBC could use the song until the end of time, benefiting from it by having a catchy jingle that has gained enough popularity to make us so upset over it, and at the very least they don’t have to commission a new song every episode.

The song is intellectual property, much as the work of writers is, hence the recent writer’s strike. It may seem small, but every time that song is played, it costs the CBC nothing, but they do actually make those small gains each time. That’s where the value lies.

It’s the principle behind invention: why would I invent something for pennies, and give it to a company to benefit from greatly? I wouldn’t do it that way: I’d get a patent (or copyright) so that my work will benefit me in proportion to the benefits derived from it by others. And to compare to the house again, yes you can sell the house and ‘benefit’ from it, but once it’s sold that’s the only benefit you’d ever get; you can’t sell it again and again for free, but the CBC can play the song again and again for ‘free’, but the composer should benefit from this as well.

Posted by SENShobo from Waterloo, ON on 06/14/08 at 10:03 PM ET

This is great stuff.  It proves the two-sides-to-every-story theory.

Posted by Tapeleg on 06/15/08 at 12:23 AM ET

Sorry, S2 (and Dean) but you’re completely incorrect.

There is nothing anywhere that states what the terms of an agreement have to be, or that everyone must agree to the same thing. People have different objectives, wants and desires.

The one thing that Dolores and her partners seemed to be quite aware of at that time was that they could, and should, keep the copyrights in their work. If they strayed from that it would only be under special circumstances and require additional consideration.

In fact, one example (that you could use as proof) is pretty much a matter of public record. Dolores was commissioned by the Government of Ontario to write “A Place To Stand..”. It’s still used today and is in fact one year older than the Hockey Theme, being Ontario’s entry to Expo 67. The short film with that music won an Oscar.

Even in this case, when dealing with the Government, Dolores and her husband who wrote the lyrics, kept their copyright. A couple years later, the gov’t of Ontario purchased the copyright in the song from Dolores and Richard, and it was assigned to Gordon V. Thompson Publishing, later acquired by Warner/Chappell Music, the current administrators.

BTW, Ralph Melanby the producer of HNIC at the time corroborates in Mclean’s and elsewhere that she was not “bought out”. He states that he wanted to, nobody else did.

The contractor analogy doesn’t work. It would become the contractor’s house if you both agreed to that. It would become your neighbour’s poodle’s house if you both agreed to that.

It was not her lawyers who “found a way” to go back for more money. It was me. I’m a publishing administrator. Here’s the real story, and not a fabricated or assumed one:

When I had the pleasure of meeting Dolores in 93 I was obtaining her permission to use the song in a Kids In The Hall tv sketch. I loved her from day 1. She asked if I might give her a bit of advice because the small amount of royalties she’d been receiving for performance rights via CAPAC/SOCAN, were suddenly diverted to other musicians. (BTW, this mess was a result of problems caused by the CBC’s inability to take care of simple industry accepted responsibilities.) I helped her resolve that dispute to her satisfaction and we decided to work together from that point on.

In order to do so, I asked for any files or documents she’d collected with respect to the song. After 25 years, there was a lot. But I could not find what is referred to as the Synchronization license. This is basically the right to use the song in the tv show, feature film, etc. The main license. Dolores’ response was “What’s a synch license?” I felt the blood rush to my feet.

Dolores had been entitled to significant royalties from this main license for 25 years, but wasn’t aware. Now, if I may be frank, the thing that gets my goat, Dean, is when folks like yourself have no reservation in insulting a person that you do not know, about a situation that you do not have facts on. Your assessment of Dolores is the antithesis of reality. Please allow me to share with you more of those *facts*.

Most important is the *fact* that Dolores forgave 25 years of unlicensed use. I was there. I was the one who told her about it. I was on the phone with her when she said “Oh. My. Well, no. I should’ve known. I’m not going to hold someone else responsible for my lack of knowledge. Why don’t we just see if we can all agree on a fair license fee and move forward in a friendly way”.

Dean, the greedy person you’re trying to paint would’ve said “Let me find a lawyer. I’ve just hit the lottery.” She didn’t even ask to sleep on it. She decided on the spot.

As for me, even if I received 100% commission, 100% of zero is zero. I not only fully supported her decision, I was proud to represent that decision. It’s the good part of humanity.

This forgiving of 25 years in conjunction with being comfortable with $400 - $500 per 3-hour game exemplifies how Dolores is NOTHING short of gracious, compassionate and fair. During these 6 years of this CBC nightmare it has indeed crossed my mind that maybe they thought she could be kicked around more easily given her amicable disposition.

These days, it sometimes seems that there are more people with the propensity to win big at all costs. Or to hurt or take advantage of others. So when you meet a one-in-a-million person like Dolores, it kind of picks your spirits up. Over the years I’ve seen countless displays of quiet generosity and charity from that woman. When someone paints her as the opposite, with no basis of fact or reality, it’s just as crushing to one’s spirit.

Dean, I’m afraid I don’t fully understand a lot of your post though I do see fragments that appear unsubstantiated. If you are interested in the facts, I’d encourage you to ask me questions and read the Open Letter at http://www.hockeytheme.com . I’ll take whatever time I can to share information with you.

I’ll try to pop back here in case I can be on any assistance to anyone else too.

Thanks all for reading this verbose message, and thanks to those who keep an open mind and seek out *all* sides of a story. Not just mine

Posted by John Ciccone on 06/15/08 at 12:23 AM ET

Good discussion, Alanah - thanks for taking the time to go a little deeper. 

Posted by Baroque from Michigan on 06/15/08 at 10:16 AM ET

I’ve just gone through all the links.  Wow.  Ugly.  Thanks for doing the legwork to bring this stuff out.

Posted by Doogie2K from Calgary on 06/15/08 at 04:27 PM ET