Hylly
Henkilönnimi Barrett, Jonathan, kirjoittaja.
Nimeke- ja vastuullisuusmerkintö Copyright in Artistic Works as a Divisible Asset on Divorce
Julkaistu
Ulkoasutiedot
Sarjamerkintö ei-lisäkirjausmuodossa European Intellectual Property Review, ISSN 0142-0461 ; 44(3)
Huomautus sisällöstä, tiivistelmä tms. The 20-year marriage of Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä, a Finnish-New Zealand artist, and her photographer husband, Paul Anthony Palmer, ended in an acrimonious divorce in 2020. In 2021, the High Court upheld Palmer’s claim that Alalääkkölä’s unsold paintings and her copyright in her artistic works constituted divisible relationship property (matrimonial assets). The High Court instructed the Family Court, against whose decision Palmer had appealed, to give effect to the division of property. Whether or not, as Isac J in the High Court suggested, this is the first time, at least in New Zealand, that copyright in an artistic work has been divided on divorce, the fact that the copyright owner is a successful visual artist has brought publicity to the case and, indeed, emotionally-charged responses. This article examines Palmer v Alalaakkola and considers copyright and other property issues arising from the case, and the public responses. This article also discusses the relevance of moral rights, which were not considered in the reported decision.
Asiasana
Maantieteellinen nimi asiasanana
Sarjalisäkirjaus - yhtenäistetty nimeke European Intellectual Property Review, 0142-0461 ; 44(3)
*000 ab a ar
*00116728
*008 s2022||||xxk|||||||||||||||||eng||
*041 $aeng
*1001 $aBarrett, Jonathan,$ekirjoittaja.
*24510$aCopyright in Artistic Works as a Divisible Asset on Divorce /$cDr Jonathan Barrett.
*260 $c2022
*300 $as. 132-138
*4901 $aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(3)
*520 $aThe 20-year marriage of Sirpa Elise Alalääkkölä, a Finnish-New Zealand artist, and her photographer husband, Paul Anthony Palmer, ended in an acrimonious divorce in 2020. In 2021, the High Court upheld Palmer’s claim that Alalääkkölä’s unsold paintings and her copyright in her artistic works constituted divisible relationship property (matrimonial assets). The High Court instructed the Family Court, against whose decision Palmer had appealed, to give effect to the division of property. Whether or not, as Isac J in the High Court suggested, this is the first time, at least in New Zealand, that copyright in an artistic work has been divided on divorce, the fact that the copyright owner is a successful visual artist has brought publicity to the case and, indeed, emotionally-charged responses. This article examines Palmer v Alalaakkola and considers copyright and other property issues arising from the case, and the public responses. This article also discusses the relevance of moral rights, which were not considered in the reported decision.
*650 7$atekijänoikeus$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p2346$2yso/fin
*650 7$ataideteokset$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p778$2yso/fin
*650 7$aavioero $0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6160$2yso/fin
*650 7$aositus (avio-oikeus)$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p6015$2yso/fin
*650 7$aoikeustapaukset$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p7219
*651 7$aUusi-Seelanti$2yso/fin$0http://www.yso.fi/onto/yso/p105384
*830 0$aEuropean Intellectual Property Review,$x0142-0461 ;$v44(3)
*852 $hSA-EIPR
^
Tästä teoksesta ei ole arvioita.
Näpäytä
kun haluat kirjoittaa ensimmäisen arvion.