In People ex rel. Van de Kamp v. American Art Enterprises, Inc. (1977) 75 Cal.App.3d 523, the Court declared that the Lassen Street premises were "used as the headquarters of various entities constituting a corporate empire engaged in the publication and distribution of pornographic materials. The editorial, publication, administration, art, and photographic development activity of the entities are housed in the 20,000 square feet of the 120,000 square foot building with the remainder devoted to storage of books, magazines, and photographs. One-third of the stored material consists of photographs of explicit sex activity, and one-third . . . of simulated sex, and one-third printed material without photographs. At least 100 persons are employed on the premises." (American Art (1977) at p. 527.) The Court went on to explain that the umbrella entity was American Art Enterprises, which employed staff photographers who worked from the premises and engaged the services of men and women who were photographed in every conceivable sexual act, although the said photographic activity did not occur on the premises; the photographs were published by American Art and its associated companies. In American Art (1977), the court held that, subject to constitutional restriction, the Lassen Street Building was subject to the Red Light Abatement Law. The case was sent back to the trial court with directions that "injunctive relief pursuant to the law must be limited in scope so that infringement upon First Amendment protection is no greater than that which government proves essential to prevention of the use of the premises to promote prostitution." (75 Cal.App.3d 527.) The trial court then conducted further proceedings and on October 1, 1979, filed findings that on July 3, 1976, the Lassen premises had been leased by defendants to the Fisher Corporation, an unrelated electronics firm, and that the reasonable value of one year's lease of the premises was $168,000. The trial court then issued judgment awarding the People "a damage award equivalent to one year's rent" in the sum of $168,000. It is from that judgment that this defendant appeals.