Copyright, Relationships and Risk: What the Supreme Court’s Decision Means for Creators

The Supreme Court’s decision in Alalääkkölä v Palmer has significant implications for artists, designers and other creators whose work is protected by copyright. While the case arose out of a relationship property dispute, its broader message is a cautionary one for creatives who assume their copyright will automatically be protected if a relationship ends.

The Court confirmed that copyright created during a relationship can be treated as relationship property under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. For many creators, that finding exposes a risk that is often overlooked until it is too late.

Copyright is valuable property - and it may be exposed

Copyright is not merely a personal right arising from creative effort. It is a form of property with real economic value. It can generate income through licensing, reproduction, royalties and merchandising, often long after the relationship in which it was created has ended.

The Supreme Court recognised that even where the creator retains legal ownership of copyright, the economic value associated with that copyright may still be subject to division. This can extend beyond income already earned and include unsold works, unpublished material and future earnings derived from exploitation of the copyright.

For many artists, this comes as an unwelcome surprise.

The risk to future income

One of the most significant implications of the decision is the exposure of future income. Copyright is inherently forward‑looking. Its value frequently lies in what may be earned years down the track, rather than what has already been realised.

Without a relationship property agreement, a former partner may have a claim to a share of that future value. This can lead to complex valuation disputes, pressure to commercialise works prematurely, or costly litigation over uncertain outcomes.

Creative control and reputational risk

Copyright disputes are not just about money. They can also affect how works are treated, valued and controlled. While moral rights remain with the author, relationship property disputes can still interfere with creative autonomy, particularly where works are unfinished, unpublished or closely tied to the creator’s reputation.

Once a dispute arises, creators are often forced into a defensive position, focused on limiting damage rather than protecting long‑term creative and commercial interests.

Why inaction is a risk

Many people assume these issues can be resolved amicably if a relationship ends. The Supreme Court’s decision highlights why that assumption is risky. Valuing copyright is complex, uncertain and expensive. Once separation occurs, goodwill often disappears and commercial realities take over.

By that stage, the opportunity to clearly protect creative assets has usually passed.

Protecting copyright through a relationship property agreement

A properly prepared relationship property agreement allows creators to proactively protect their copyright by clearly defining it as separate property. It can also address how income, future earnings and control will be treated, providing certainty and reducing the risk of dispute.

For artists and creatives, this is not about pessimism. It is about recognising that copyright is often their most valuable asset and taking sensible steps to protect it.

A clear message from the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court’s decision sends a clear message: copyright created during a relationship may be exposed if it is not protected. For anyone whose creative work has present or future commercial value, early legal advice and a well‑drafted relationship property agreement can be critical.



Protecting copyright is not just about ownership. It is about safeguarding income, reputation and creative freedom.