Colombo, Sri Lanka – The Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has affirmed the importance of copyright protection under the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003, ruling in favour of Mesthri Tilvin Silva in a landmark dispute involving former JVP parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa over the unauthorized use of written material in a published book.
The case centred on allegations that Weerawansa’s book, marked as ‘P4’, reproduced substantial portions of two documents prepared by Tilvin Silva, identified in court proceedings as ‘P2’ and ‘P3’, without obtaining permission from the original author.
The documents contained Silva’s personal analysis, assessments and political views presented to the Central Committee of the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) during internal discussions relating to the 2005 Presidential Election.
The High Court had previously ruled that the documents constituted protected literary works under Sri Lanka’s copyright law. The Defendant appealed the decision, arguing that the documents were not eligible for copyright protection and that publication of the material fell within the concept of fair use.
The Supreme Court, however, dismissed the appeal and upheld the core findings of the High Court.
Court Recognises Political Analysis Documents as Copyright-Protected Works
A central issue before the Court was whether Silva’s documents qualified as protected works under Section 6 of the Intellectual Property Act No. 36 of 2003.
The Court examined the meaning of a “literary work” under copyright law and held that protection does not depend on literary quality, commercial value, or artistic merit.
Instead, copyright protection extends to original expressions of ideas recorded in written form.
The Court found that the documents marked ‘P2’ and ‘P3’ contained Silva’s own analysis, opinions, evaluations and written expressions, making them original literary works entitled to protection.
The judgment reaffirmed the principle that copyright protects the expression of ideas, rather than the ideas themselves.
Economic and Moral Rights Remained With the Author
The Court further considered whether Silva retained economic and moral rights over documents that were prepared for internal political discussions.
Applying Sections 9 and 10 of the Intellectual Property Act, the Court held that ownership of copyright rights does not disappear merely because a document was created for a specific internal purpose.
The Court ruled that Silva, as the author, continued to hold:
- Economic rights, including the exclusive right to reproduce and authorize publication of the work; and
- Moral rights, including recognition as the creator and protection against unauthorized alteration or misuse.
The Court rejected the argument that the documents lacked copyright protection because they were not originally intended for public distribution.
Unauthorized Reproduction Amounted to Copyright Infringement
The Supreme Court agreed that the Defendant had reproduced substantial portions of Silva’s documents without consent.
Under Section 9(1)(a) of the Intellectual Property Act, reproduction of the whole or a substantial part of a protected work without authorization constitutes infringement.
The Court held that the presence of additional original content within Weerawansa’s book did not remove liability where protected material belonging to another author had been copied without permission.
The judgment emphasised that copyright infringement can arise even when copied material forms only part of a larger publication.
Court Rejects Fair Use Defence
One of the key arguments raised by the Defendant was that publication of the material in the book constituted fair use under Section 11 of the Intellectual Property Act.
The Court rejected this argument, finding that the use was not limited or transformative but involved substantial reproduction of the Plaintiff’s work.
The Court noted that:
- The reproduced material represented the core substance of Silva’s documents;
- The publication was commercially distributed; and
- No permission had been obtained from the copyright owner.
Accordingly, the Court held that the publication did not qualify for the fair use exception.
Supreme Court Modifies Injunction but Upholds Liability
While affirming the finding of infringement, the Supreme Court modified the scope of the injunction issued by the High Court.
Instead of preventing distribution of the entire book, the Court restricted the injunction only to the specific sections that infringed Silva’s copyright.
This allowed the remaining portions of the publication to continue while protecting the Plaintiff’s intellectual property rights.
The Court dismissed Weerawansa’s appeal and awarded statutory damages of Rs. 1 million to Tilvin Silva.
The Defendant’s claim for damages was rejected.
Landmark Implications for Sri Lanka’s Copyright Law
The judgment provides significant guidance on copyright protection in Sri Lanka, particularly regarding:
1. Protection of Political and Policy Documents
The ruling confirms that political analysis, research papers, internal reports and strategic documents can qualify as copyright-protected literary works if they contain original expression.
2. Internal Documents Can Carry Copyright Protection
A document does not lose copyright protection simply because it was prepared for a private organisation, committee, or internal discussion.
3. Fair Use Has Limits
The decision clarifies that fair use cannot be used as a defence where protected works are substantially copied for commercial publication.
4. Authors Retain Control Over Their Written Expression
The judgment strengthens the rights of writers, researchers, analysts and policymakers to control how their original work is reproduced and distributed.
Legal Principles Applied
The Court considered international copyright principles reflected in cases including:
- University of London Press v University Tutorial Press [1916]
- Hollinrake v Truswell [1894]
- Feist Publications Inc. v Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991)
- Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening (2009)
- CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada (2004)
- Hubbard v Vosper (1972)
These cases reinforced the principles of originality, protection of expression, and limitations on fair use.
Final Verdict
The Supreme Court’s decision marks an important milestone in Sri Lanka’s intellectual property jurisprudence, confirming that original written analysis and political commentary are protected creative works.
The judgment sends a clear message that ideas may be freely discussed, but the original expression of those ideas belongs to the author and cannot be reproduced without lawful permission.
