Copyrights are linked to an artist's personal skills, but they also represent economic rights: court
The Supreme Court has ruled that copyrights in artworks created during a marriage are relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA).
The court’s decision in Alalääkkölä v Palmer [2025] NZSC 9 settled a legal dispute between artist Sirpa Alalääkkölä and her former spouse, Paul Palmer, over the ownership and valuation of her paintings and their associated copyrights.
The court held that copyrights are property under New Zealand law and can be classified as relationship property if created during a marriage. The court dismissed Alalääkkölä’s appeal and directed the Family Court to determine the value and distribution of the artworks and copyrights. It also clarified that while copyrights are linked to an artist’s personal skills and creativity, they also represent economic rights that can be assigned, sold, or transferred. As such, they meet the PRA’s broad definition of property.
Alalääkkölä and Palmer married in 1997 and separated in 2017. Alalääkkölä, a painter, was the family’s primary income earner. At the time of separation, 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 dispute focused on the copyrights in these works. Palmer initially sought to use the copyrights for commercial purposes but later agreed that Alalääkkölä should retain them, provided he was compensated through other relationship property.
The Family Court initially ruled that the copyrights belonged exclusively to Alalääkkölä as her separate property. Palmer appealed, and the High Court overturned that decision, declaring that the copyrights were relationship property to be divided equally. The Court of Appeal upheld this view, stating that Alalääkkölä should retain exclusive legal ownership of the copyrights but with a compensatory adjustment in property division.
The Supreme Court confirmed that under the Copyright Act 1994, copyright is a form of personal property that vests initially in the author of a work. Copyrights provide the owner with exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce, sell, and distribute copies. The court found that these rights hold economic value and can be realised in financial terms, making them property under the PRA.
Alalääkkölä argued that copyright is tied to personal attributes and artistic talent, making it separate property. The court rejected this argument, emphasising that property created during a marriage, including copyrights, is relationship property if it results from joint efforts or contributions within the marriage.
The Supreme Court outlined a framework for valuing and dividing the unsold artworks. It considered Alalääkkölä’s categorisation of her works, which ranged from incomplete or damaged paintings to one-off unique pieces and works intended for reproduction. The court emphasised that market valuation should reflect whether an artwork’s copyright has been monetised in the past and whether the artist intends to exploit it in the future.
The Supreme Court dismissed Alalääkkölä’s appeal and sent the case back to the Family Court for valuation and distribution of the artworks and copyrights.
