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