BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 630 Page 1 ASSEMBLY THIRD READING AB 630 (Holden) As Introduced February 20, 2013 Majority vote BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS 12-0 ----------------------------------------------------------------- |Ayes:|Gordon, Bocanegra, | | | | |Campos, | | | | |Dickinson, Eggman, | | | | |Hagman, | | | | |Holden, Maienschein, | | | | |Mullin, | | | | |Skinner, Ting, Wilk | | | |-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------| | | | | | ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY : Prohibits a person from using an architect's instruments of service without a written contract or written assignment authorizing that use. FISCAL EFFECT : None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS : Current law already provides protections for an architectural work under federal copyright law and state contract law. If a person improperly uses or transfers architectural work, an architect can pursue legal action in a federal court and seek injunctive relief or compensation ranging from $200 to $150,000 for each infringement. In addition, if a contract prohibits the transfer of architectural work, then an architect can sue for a breach of contract in state civil court. If an architect's written contract does not state whether the right of the original client to use the architectural work can be transferred to another person, it is implied that the only person who is authorized to use the architectural work is the client who signs the contract. The sponsor believes this bill will remove any ambiguity as to who is authorized to use an architectural work. However, given that tort law provides a means for architects to be compensated for damages, it is unclear why this bill is necessary. In addition, if a written contract is silent on the transfer rights AB 630 Page 2 of an architectural work, this bill would prohibit the use of an architect's work without permission, even if that was not the intent. Generally, this would pose no problem, since anyone other than the original client should seek permission from the architect to use his or her work. However, since copyright protection for a work can last anywhere from 70 years following the life of the author to 120 years after the date of publication, a situation may arise in which the architect will not be available to grant permission, even if it is sought. While the California Architects Board (CAB) supports this measure, the CAB wrote a letter "to point out, however, that these proposed provisions may be more appropriate in the Civil Code or the general provisions of the BPC [Business and Professions Code] rather than the Act. This is because CAB has no regulatory authority over consumers/clients? The CAB is also concerned that these well-intended provisions could be abused by an architect simply terminating a contract even though the payment for services is current. This would leave the consumer/client in the untenable position of having to negotiate with the architect to continue the project and ultimately use the instruments of service." Analysis Prepared by : Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0000276