Relationship property proceedings — copyright — artwork — Copyright Act 1994, ss 5, 6, 14, 16, 22 & 113 — Property (Relationships) Act 1976, ss 1M & 2 — Oraka Technologies v Geostel Ltd [2013] NZCA 111. The parties were engaged in relationship property proceedings. A decision had been made as to the majority of the parties' property, but the issue of copyright of the applicant's artwork and occupational rent remained to be decided. The issue was whether copyright in the applicant's artwork could be "relationship property" for the purposes of the Property (Relationships) Act (PRA). Pursuant to s 16 of the Copyright Act, copyright was "property", which vested in the author of the work. The artwork could constitute "property" as defined in either s 2(c) or s 2(e) of the PRA. Following the test for whether something was relationship property under the PRA, the Judge concluded that the created artworks were relationship property, but the skill to create them was not, and therefore the copyright was separate property. The next questions for the Court were whether copyright could be transferred by order of the Court and if so, whether the Court should exercise discretion to do so. Pursuant to s 113 of the Copyright Act transfer of copyright was possible; however, the Court only had jurisdiction to order transfer of relationship property, not separate property. The Judge therefore declined to make an order in respect of the copyright. In the event that the Judge was incorrect about the Court's jurisdiction, the Judge noted that an order for transfer of the copyright would not have been done in any case for various reasons. The Judge also made an order as to occupational rent. Note: this judgment has been appealed to the High Court. See Palmer v Alalaakkola [2021] NZHC 2330. Judgment Date: 6 March 2020.