In Sri Lanka, disputes between musicians and artists over song ownership are more common than you think- raising the big question: who really owns the copyrights for music? In this case, the Supreme Court steps in with a clear and decisive answer.
Title: Torana Music Distributors Pvt. Ltd. vs Lucian Bulathsinhala
Case Number: SC CHC APPEAL 22 / 2015
Decided on: 2026-03-31
Before: A.H.M.D. Nawaz, J.; Kumudini Wickremasinghe, J.; A.L. Shiran Gooneratne, J.
The decision in Torana Music v. Lucien Bulathsinghala stands as a defining authority on the scope of rights in musical works under Sri Lankan intellectual property law. It clarifies a recurring misconception in the music industry – namely, whether the consent of a performer alone is sufficient to commercially exploit a song.
Background to the dispute – Who owns the copyrights for music?
The case arose from the commercial release of a live performance recording. Lucien Bulathsinghala, a distinguished lyricist, had authored a well-known song that had been performed for decades by Sunil Edirisinghe at public concerts.
A live performance was later recorded and distributed as a DVD by Torana Music, purportedly with the performer’s consent. However, no authorization had been obtained from the lyricist. This omission formed the basis of the infringement claim.
Core Legal Issues
1. Performer’s Rights vs. Author’s Economic Rights
Under the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003, performers and producers enjoy related rights. However, the Supreme Court made it clear that these rights do not override the author’s primary economic rights in the underlying work.
The Court reaffirmed that:
- The lyricist (author), and
- The composer (if applicable),
retain exclusive control over the commercial reproduction and distribution of the work.
Accordingly, the performer’s consent alone is legally insufficient for commercial exploitation.
2. Limits of Implied Consent
A central argument by the appellant was that decades of uninterrupted live performances implied consent from the lyricist.
The Court rejected this reasoning, drawing a critical distinction between:
- Permission to perform a work live, and
- Permission to record, reproduce, and commercially distribute that performance
These are legally distinct rights. Consent for one does not extend to the other unless expressly granted.
3. Expansive Interpretation of “Reproduction”
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment lies in its interpretation of “reproduction.”
The Court held that even in the absence of printed lyrics:
- Recording a song, and
- Making it available for auditory consumption
constitutes reproduction of a literary work.
This interpretation is particularly important in the context of modern digital dissemination, including streaming platforms and online video distribution.
4. Locus Standi of the Author
The appellant further argued that the performer should have been made a party to the proceedings.
The Court dismissed this contention, holding that:
- The lyricist was asserting a violation of his own independent economic rights
- Therefore, he had sufficient standing to initiate and maintain the action without joining other parties
Judgment
The Supreme Court ultimately:
- Dismissed the appeal in its entirety
- Affirmed the decision of the Commercial High Court
- Upheld the award of damages to the lyricist
This outcome reinforced the legal protection afforded to authors under Sri Lankan intellectual property law.
Legal Significance and Industry Impact
This judgment has far-reaching implications for the music and entertainment industry:
- It establishes that authorial rights remain central and non-derogable
- It confirms that performer rights are supplementary, not substitutive
- It underscores the necessity of obtaining proper licenses from all rights holders
- It applies equally to physical media (DVDs) and digital platforms (e.g., YouTube, streaming services)
For record labels and content distributors, the ruling serves as a clear warning:
Commercial use without authorization from the underlying rights holders constitutes infringement, regardless of performer consent.
Conclusion – who owns the copyrights for music?
The ruling in Torana Music v. Lucien Bulathsinghala marks a pivotal development in Sri Lankan intellectual property jurisprudence. It reaffirms that rights in a musical work are layered and legally distinct, requiring careful navigation before any commercial exploitation.
At its core, the decision emphasizes a simple but critical principle:
no party can commercially exploit a creative work without securing the consent of those who own the underlying rights.