User:LRW2022/California Art Preservation Act

The California Art Preservation Act (CAPA) is a 1979 California law that provides legal protection for artists' moral rights by prohibiting the alteration or destruction of their artwork without their consent. The law is currently codified at California Civil Code §987. The law has since been amended in part. The California Art Preservation Act was the first major law to specifically address artists' rights in the United States.

Portions of the law may overlap with the provisions of the Visual Artists Rights Act, in which case the California law is preempted by the federal law.

Rights under CAPA
The Act exclusively grants artists whose work qualifies as fine art under the statute the following rights:


 * the right to claim authorship of their work
 * the right to prevent any modification of their works of fine art
 * the right to prevent the destruction of their artwork

The rights granted under the Act exist for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years after their death. Upon an artist's death, their rights under the Act transfer to their heir or named representative. An artist may waive these rights through express written waiver.

To protect these rights, CAPA provides for civil penalties, including both actual damages and punitive damages, and injunctive relief for the intentional or grossly negligent modification or destruction of the art piece. This protection includes any damage caused by the gross negligence of framers or art restorers. There is no remedy for simple negligence.

An artist wishing to bring suit for damage to their artwork must file a claim within three years of the act that damaged their piece or within one year of discovery of the damage (whichever time period is longer).

Covered works
Fine art is defined in the statute as any original painting, sculpture, or drawing that is "of recognized quality." "Recognized quality" is determined on a case-by-case basis by opinions of expert witnesses including artists, art dealers, art collectors, and art museum curators. Murals qualify as paintings and are entitled to protection under the statute.

Fine art, as used in the law, does not include works prepared for "commercial use" by the purchaser. "Commercial use" is fine art created under a contract for use in advertising or marketing in both print and electronic media.

CAPA provides an exception to artwork covered under this statute if the artwork is attached to a building (like a permanently fixed sculpture or mural). In those cases, if the artwork cannot be removed without substantial damage to or destroying the piece, the artist's rights are considered to be waived unless the owner of the building has previously signed a written agreement with the artist wherein the artist expressly reserves their rights as it pertains to the specific artwork attached to the building.

Legislative History
Senator Alan Sieroty sponsored the Act, which was introduced to the California Senate on March 21, 1979. It was passed on July 19, 1979 and went into effect on January 1, 1980. Any alteration to or destruction of fine art prior to January 1, 1980 does not fall within the parameters of the law.

Prior to the enactment of CAPA, there was no existing law in California that protected an artist against the alteration or destruction of an artwork once ownership of the piece (through sale or gift) had been transferred to another person.

Legislative Intent
The California Legislature intended for the California Art Preservation Act to protect an artist's interest in preserving their work as it was created. With this intent, the Legislature found that art was an "expression of the artist's personality" and that any alteration or destruction of that art therefore damaged the artist's reputation. The Legislature additionally found that protection and preservation of fine art was in the public's interest as a means of preserving the "integrity of cultural and artistic creations."

Application and effect
CAPA's application is limited to acts that happened within the state of California.

Notable Cases

 * [Note: altered this in actual article.]
 * Botello v. Shell Oil Co. (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)
 * Lubner v. City of Los Angeles (Cal. Ct. App. 1996)
 * Cort v. St. Paul Fire & Marines Insurance Co. (Ninth Cir. 2002)
 * Schmid v. City and County of San Francisco (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) - a statute that has not been destroyed but merely moved into storage does not qualify under this act.