Su Silong vs. Zhang Bichen: The Battle over “Who Is the Original Singer?”
-
Introduction: The “original singer” row that revived the IP debate
In July 2025, Su Silong and Zhang Bichen reignited public interest in the question “Who is the original singer of ‘Nian Lun’?” Beyond a simple credit line, the quarrel reopened wider conversations about copyright protection in China’s music industry. This article dissects the legal rules and commercial stakes that sit beneath the headlines.
-
Background and flashpoints
2.1 How it started
“Nian Lun” was written by Su Silong as the 2015 insert song for the TV drama The Journey of Flower. Zhang Bichen delivered the first released recording. On 22 July 2025, influencer “Wang Zai Xiao Qiao” told her livestream that Zhang Bichen—not Su—was the “original singer,” instantly polarising fans.
2.2 The two flashpoints
• Credit vs. copyright.
Zhang’s studio claimed she is “the sole original singer” with “permanent performing rights.” Su countered on 25 July that he was “revoking all licences” and forbidding further performances for the time being.
• Platform tagging.
QQ Music first stripped the “original singer” tag from Zhang’s version, then restored it, exposing the fragility of metadata in the streaming age.
-
Legal anatomy
3.1 “Original singer” ≠ copyright owner
Chinese copyright law does not recognise “original singer” as a legal category. The statute distinguishes:
– Musical-work copyright (lyrics & composition) → Su Silong owns all moral and economic rights.
– Performers’ rights (neighbouring rights) → Zhang Bichen owns rights in her specific 2015 sound recording, including the right to be identified and the right to remuneration.
3.2 Revocability of licences
Whether Su can “take back” the song depends entirely on the wording of the 2015 licence agreements. If the grant was non-exclusive and time-limited, the term expiry allows him to refuse further licences.
3.3 Perpetuity of performers’ rights
Even if Su withdraws the musical-work licence, Zhang’s performers’ rights in the 2015 master remain intact. These rights cover reproduction, distribution, rental, exhibition, broadcasting and making available on the internet.
-
Commercial chessboard
4.1 Money on the table
Su’s revocation is likely aimed at securing exclusive use for his own concerts or at commanding higher sync fees from variety shows. Platforms that briefly delisted Zhang’s version may have been reacting to fresh exclusive-deal negotiations with Su.
4.2 Fan-base optics
Zhang’s fans stress her historic contribution; Su’s stress the creator’s prerogative. The clash between the two fandom narratives amplifies the dispute far beyond the courtroom.
-
Precedents and prescriptions
5.1 Earlier cases
– After Jay Chou reclaimed the copyright in “Wu Ding,” Wu Zongxian’s status as the first performer was never erased.
– After G.E.M. parted ways with Hummingbird Music, her “original singer” credit for “Bubble” remained intact.
5.2 How to fix it
• Platforms: tag Su’s forthcoming release as “Composer’s Version” and Zhang’s 2015 master as “Historical Original Recording,” with a public explainer that “original singer” and “copyright owner” are separate concepts.
• Artists: Su should label any new recording as a “re-recording”; Zhang can register her 2015 performance with the Music Copyright Society of China to reinforce her neighbouring rights.
• Users: stream the historical release through licensed channels and recognise that “first performer” and “copyright holder” need not be the same person.
-
Conclusion: why IP literacy still matters
The Su-vs-Zhang spat lays bare the tangled knots of copyright ownership, licence chains and performers’ rights that still plague China’s music sector. Intellectual property is no longer just a legal file; it is a three-way tug-of-war among laws, business models and public perception. Only clearer contracts, transparent metadata and a better-informed public can keep both creators and performers from being trapped in the next 180-character social-media storm.
