http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200804/042408e.html

Okay, I’ve read a little more about the subject, and though I’m still far from an expert on the subject, I want to offer a little more insight:

Kristin, although Shawna’s original post was a bit sensational, I don’t think it was that far off the mark. Like she noted, it looks like the bill is going to strongly favor private registries and databases, because in order for the bill to work, the term “diligent search” has to be well defined. According to the press release, this “may include using Copyright Office records, private registries, industry practices and guidelines, technology tools, and electronic databases…”

No, a person cannot use an image simply because there’s no label on it, but if an infringer follows these guidelines and finds no records of the work in any registry or database, it IS legalizing him to use the work. He did the search - he documented it - it’s legal. This is scary because who’s to say a reasonable search is going to be enough for every piece of artwork out there.

Yes, technically you still own the copyright and if you find out about the infringement, you can fight it (I agree with you that legal compensation is one of the larger issues in this bill), but it doesn’t rid of the fact that the bill will give users an avenue to use the work freely and legally without your knowledge, where before it was protected just by existing.

Artists have to deal with people using their work without their knowledge with or without this bill, but at least today it’s good to know that law currently detracts most of those users, not giving them a way to work around it.

http://www.tomrichmond.com/blog/?p=2029

http://www.illustratorspartnership.org/01_topics/article.php?searchterm=00264

The quoted description of the Orphan (not “Orphaned”) Works Bill reflects an incomplete understanding of the issue. The misinformation here does not help anybody, and I believe it reflects badly upon the artistic community.

It is believed that a modified version of the 2006 bill is going to be brought out soon–but as it has not been introduced, no one has even seen it yet. We don’t even know what it will say. There are some situations in which the 2006 bill would have offered protection for reasonable things, described in this post (http://maradydd.livejournal.com/374886.html) which is well worth reading for a thorough understanding of the bill. The IPA’s articles thoroughly describe why the 2006 bill was bad, and why in all likelihood a modified bill in 2008 will still be bad.

The 2006 bill did NOT require registration of your works, nor did it attempt to “legalize theft.” Here (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5439:) is the 2006 bill. It should be pointed out that the infringer must document a diligent search as well perform it; unless he has records proving he attempted to track down the artist (and in some cases, paid money to do so), the work is not considered an Orphan Work. Additionally, under the 2006 bill, a simple lack of identifying information on the work did not constitute a “reasonably diligent search,” and that work would not be an Orphan Work. Suit could be filed against an infringer, but the amount was limited to a reasonable rate, essentially the artist’s standard licensing fee, and the artist could not sue to collect attorney’s fees. The issue was not that the bill “legalized theft” but that it became economically unfeasible to file suit against the infringer. If this remains the case in a modified 2008 bill, THAT will be the reason to oppose it when and if it comes out.

Someone registering your work in their name at the Copyright Office will set them back around two grand in fines. There IS legal recourse for that, and unless you sign away your copyright, no one can make it illegal for you to use your own work. Digimarc and similar technologies make it possible to embed your copyright information into a file in a way that is invisible to the naked eye, but which can still be picked up by computers, which I would recommend doing regardless of whether a new bill passes. It makes it more difficult for infringers.