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