A long-running dispute between an artist from Marlborough, Sirpa Alalääkkölä, and her ex-husband, Paul Palmer, over whether he owned half of the rights to her artwork when their relationship ended has recently been determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal’s ruling that copyrights are ‘property’ under New Zealand law and can be classified as relationship property if created during a marriage (or de facto relationship or civil union). The court dismissed Ms Alalääkkölä’s appeal and directed the Family Court determine the value and distribution of the artworks and copyrights.

Background

Ms Alalääkkölä and Mr Palmer separated in 2017 after a 20 year marriage. She was a painter and the main income earner. When they separated, there was a large stock of unsold paintings she had created during the marriage. While it was agreed that the physical paintings were relationship property, the focus of the dispute was on the copyrights in relation to these works.

The Family Court initially determined that the copyrights were the separate property of Ms Alalääkkölä in respect of which Mr Palmer would have no claim.  Mr Palmer appealed to the High Court and the decision of the Family Court was overturned, declaring that the copyrights were relationship property and, as such, to be divided equally. Emily Flaszynski and Dan Chisholm wrote an article on this in 2023, which you can see here.

The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court decision and determined that whilst Ms Alalääkkölä should retain sole legal ownership of the copyrights, Mr Palmer was entitled to a compensatory financial adjustment from other relationship assets to ensure an equal division.

Supreme Court decision

The Supreme Court confirmed that under the Copyright Act 1994 copyright is a form of personal property that vests initially in the author of the work. Copyrights provide the owner with exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce, sell, and distribute copies. The Supreme Court found that, while copyrights are linked to an artist’s personal attributes and skills, these rights hold economic value that can be assigned, sold, or transferred thus meeting the broad definition of ‘property’ under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

Ms Alalääkkölä’s argument that copyright is attributed to the individual and their artistic talent, making it separate property, was rejected.  The Court emphasised that property created during a marriage, including copyrights, is relationship property if it results from joint efforts or contributions within the marriage.

What could this mean for you?

If you are in a relationship and there are certain assets you may not want your partner/ spouse to share in, in the event your relationship ends on separation (or death), please contact a member of our family law team to discuss your options.

If you are thinking of separating from your partner/spouse, or you have separated, our family law team can advise as to your likely entitlements/obligations and provide practical advice as to the next steps.

Please feel free to contact Sarah White, Consultant (03 343 8452 / sarah.white@mmlaw.co.nz) or any member of our family law team for further help and advice.