BILL ANALYSIS Ó AB 630 Page 1 CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS AB 630 (Holden) As Amended August 27, 2013 Majority vote ----------------------------------------------------------------- |ASSEMBLY: |74-0 |(May 2, 2013) |SENATE: |37-0 |(September 3, | | | | | | |2013) | ----------------------------------------------------------------- Original Committee Reference: B., P. & C.P. SUMMARY : Prohibits a person from using an architect's instruments of service without a written contract or written assignment authorizing that use; prohibits an architect from unreasonably withholding consent from the architect's client to use those instruments of service; specifies that an architect may reasonably withhold consent if full payment has not been made, or if the conditions of the written contract have not been fulfilled; and declares that this bill is declaratory of existing law. The Senate amendments : 1)Prohibit an architect from unreasonably withholding consent to use his or her instruments of service from a person for whom the architect provided the services. 2)Allow an architect to reasonably withhold consent to use the instruments of service for cause, including, but not limited to, lack of full payment for services provided or failure to fulfill the conditions of a written contract. 3)Find and declare that this bill is a clarification of existing law and does not take away any right otherwise granted by law. FISCAL EFFECT : None. This bill is keyed non-fiscal by the Legislative Counsel. COMMENTS : Current law provides certain protections for an architectural work under federal copyright law and state contract law. For example, 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 AB 630 Page 2 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. This bill further clarifies that an architect may not unreasonably withhold consent, but allows an architect to withhold consent for cause, including lack of full payment or failure to fulfill the conditions of a written contract. In addition, if a written contract is silent on the transfer rights 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. Analysis Prepared by : Elissa Silva / B.,P. & C.P. / (916) 319-3301 FN: 0002315