A court has ruled that the copyright of work created by a Marlborough-based artist during her 20-year marriage should remain in her hands, in a precedent-setting case over divorce settlement.
The Court of Appeal said Sirpa Alalaakkola should retain legal ownership of her work. It comes after a High Court ruling in 2021 found her former husband Paul Palmer was entitled to copyright.
In a statement, the Court of Appeal said the High Court was right to rule copyright constitutes relationship property, but in this case Alalaakkola should have exclusive legal rights.
It added that Palmer must receive a compensatory adjustment from other property to ensure an equal division of relationship property.
The decision comes almost a year after the Court of Appeal hearing, which was the first time the Copyright Act and Property (Relationships) Act came face to face in the courts.
Speaking at the Court of Appeal hearing last year, Alalaakkola's lawyer Clive Elliott argued the High Court ruling could have wider implications for the entire artistic community.
"Her art is both her identity and soul. Each piece she produces she chooses to share for sale, it's a conscious choice from her part to let that work go," he told the court.
Elliott said the High Court decision could allow Palmer to reproduce Alalaakkola's works and sell them, including art Alalaakkola never intended to be seen.
"All it is going to do is weaponise the art and turn it into a means for Mr Palmer to control his wife," he said.
However, Palmer's lawyer Brian Fletcher argued the dispute was not about his former wife's artistic skills, but the works themselves, which are valued at thousands of dollars each.
"Once that talent is applied to painting, it is not the talent that is the property, it is the painting itself," Fletcher said.
SHARE ME