Copyright in works of art produced during a relationship amount to relationship property, the Court of Appeal ruled. But these copyrights need not be shared equally when a relationship ends. Copyright can be valued with the artist buying out their former spouse’s half interest.
Artist Sirpa Alalaakkola took strong exception to former spouse Paul Palmer exercising any control over commercial exploitation of her work saying her artistic output amounted to a personal brand; ‘I am my art and my art is me,’ she said. Uncontrolled and unsanctioned exploitation of her work would affect ‘my good name, my identity and my soul,’ she explained.
Ms Alalaakkola is renowned for her colourful artwork, much of it depicting holiday activities.
Relationship property law governs both works of art and copyright in reproductions. The physical representation of a painting by itself is a chattel; an item of property. The right to make reproductions is also a property right; an example of intangible property with exercise of these intangible rights prescribed by copyright law.
Ms Alalaakkola objected to copyright in various paintings being transferred to Mr Palmer as part division of their relationship property. He indicated plans to make and sell reproductions.
Recognising that her art is highly personal, the Court of Appeal ruled that it was inappropriate and unfair to impose a transfer of copyright in selected paintings from Ms Alalaakola to her former spouse as part of a disputed relationship property claim. A primary principle in the Copyright Act is that the artist personally controls any transfers of copyright.
The court ruled that copyright in all of Ms Alalaakkola’s artistic output held at the date their relationship ended be valued.
This will require some heroic assumptions as to the potential future income stream likely from sale of any reproductions. The Court of Appeal delegated this task to a future Family Court hearing.
Mr Palmer is entitled to a credit for half the value of these copyrights in the final division of their relationship property.
Alalaakkola v. Palmer - Court of Appeal (21.02.24)
24.062