Works of art produced during a relationship are relationship property as also is copyright in the finished product, the High Court ruled in a dispute between Marlborough artist Sirpa Alalaakkola and her former husband when their twenty year marriage ended.
Renowned for her colourful artwork, much of it depicting holiday activities, Ms Alalaakkola agreed former spouse Paul Palmer could have some of her paintings but objected to him also having copyright. Mr Palmer said he intended to reproduce copies of the paintings to sell and to derive future income.
In the High Court, Justice Isac ruled copyright in works of art is a ‘property right’ to be valued and divided as relationship property at the end of a relationship. As a property right, copyright is no different in principle from intangible rights such as fishing quota, options to purchase and insurance claims, all of which have previously been treated as relationship assets. The physical painting and copyright in the image are not one and the same, Justice Isac said. They are separate property interests with differing economic values. One person may own a painting, another hold copyright.
No evidence had been provided as to either the value of paintings completed by Ms Alaakkola during the relationship or the value of copyright attaching to these images. Justice Isac recommended it was best for the two to reach agreement between themselves. If no agreement could be reached, it was for the Family Court to decide on the value of paintings still held by Ms Alalaakkola and the value of copyright attaching to those paintings, with Mr Palmer entitled to half the value. Many of Ms Alalaakkola’s paintings ruled to be relationship property are on exhibition in Finland, the country of her birth.
Not categorised as relationship property were paintings completed before the relationship started, sold during the relationship, or produced after the relationship ended.
Palmer v. Alalaakkola – High Court (7.09.21)
21.149