Creativity and the Courts: Copyrights as Relationship Property

In a controversial decision for creatives across the country, the New Zealand Supreme Court has settled the law and ruled that copyrights in artworks created during a qualifying relationship are classified as relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA). The case, Alalääkkölä v Palmer [2025] NZSC 9, has significant implications for artists and creatives in the context of relationship property division.

Background

Ms Alalääkkölä, a renowned painter, and Mr Palmer were married from 1997 until their separation in 2017. Throughout their 20-year marriage, Ms Alalääkkölä produced numerous artworks, many of which remained unsold at the time of their separation. While both parties agreed that the physical paintings constituted relationship property, a dispute arose regarding the classification and division of the associated copyrights. Mr Palmer sought either a share of the copyrights or compensation for their value, whereas Ms Alalääkkölä contended that the copyrights were intrinsically linked to her personal skills and should be considered her separate property.

The Family Court initially ruled in favour of Ms Alalääkkölä, determining that the copyrights were her separate property due to their connection to her personal artistic skills. However, upon appeal, the High Court reversed this decision, classifying the copyrights as relationship property. The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's ruling, leading to a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision

The Supreme Court examined whether copyrights fall within the definition of "property" under the PRA and, if so, whether they should be classified as relationship property. The Court affirmed that under the Copyright Act 1994, copyright is a personal property right that vests initially in the author of a work.

The court also clarified that, although copyrights are tied to an artist’s personal skills and creativity, they encompass economic rights that can be assigned, sold, or transferred. As such, they meet the PRA’s broad definition of property. Therefore, the copyrights in artworks created by Ms Alalääkkölä during the marriage were deemed relationship property.

Implications

This ruling establishes a precedent that copyrights, created during a qualifying relationship under the PRA, fall within the scope of relationship property and may be subject to the presumption of equal sharing on separation.

This decision underscores the importance of understanding how intellectual property rights are treated within the framework of relationship property law in New Zealand. Artists and other professionals with copyrightable works should seek legal advice to ensure their intellectual property interests are adequately protected in the context of personal relationships.

If you are concerned that this recent ruling may affect you, we recommend getting in touch with us to understand the potential implications and explore the best protection strategies based on your specific circumstances. To arrange an appointment you can contact Emily by email at [email protected] or by telephone on (07) 282 0174.