The Supreme Court has upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling in Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä v Paul Anthony Palmer that copyright is considered relationship property under the PRA in the event of a separation.
The decision follows a long-running dispute between Finnish artist Ms Sirpa Alalääkkölä and her husband Paul Palmer who split in 2017 after twenty years of marriage. The case was brought before the Family Court three years later, when Palmer requested the transfer of copyright for a specific list of paintings to reproduce and sell them.
Following the Family’s Court decision that copyright belonged solely to Ms Alalääkkölä, Palmer appealed to the High Court which reversed the decision. Ms Alalääkkölä then brought the case to the Court of Appeal, which ruled that copyright in artworks created during the relationship qualified as relationship property. However, rather than splitting ownership, the court determined that Ms Alalääkkölä would retain sole legal ownership, while Palmer would receive a financial adjustment from other relationship assets to ensure an equal division.
In 2024 Ms Alalääkkölä appealed to the Supreme Court. Acting for Ms Alalääkkölä, Bankside Barrister Sharon Chandra and Shortland Chambers Barrister Clive Elliott KC argued that copyright in artwork should not be shared as relationship property.
The Supreme Court delivered its judgment, stating in its media release on 6th March 2025: “The author’s personal attributes and skills are not property, but their use during the relationship to create an artefact is. As a matter of fact, the use of those attributes and skills may be the product not only of the author’s personality and skills but also the division of effort within the marriage.”
The Supreme Court ordered that the case be sent back to the Family Court to determine the value and allocation of the artworks.
Sharon Chandra says that while the Court has decided the copyright needs to be shared, the ruling “provides much-needed clarity from NZ's highest Court on how intellectual property is treated in the relationship property context." She adds that the decision “sets an important precedent for artists and creators generally about how their copyright interests will be treated in a relationship.”
Clive Elliott KC agrees that the ruling provides clarity not only for the parties involved but also for IP and relationship property lawyers, “who have approached this issue from very different perspectives and will likely continue to do so – now, however, with clear guidance to help them get it right.”
Further reading
Supreme Court Judment, 6 March 2025
Courts of New Zealand media release, 6 March 2025
NZ Lawyer, Artist's copyrights deemed relationship property in Supreme Court ruling, 7 March 2025
Comment