The “diligent search” aspect is a HUGE factor you left out, as Dan B. Lee and others have pointed out. Its not as if someone can just use your work. They must first do a search for the owner (most blog posts and internet posts already have the author identified right on the work’s page) THEN, if the owner cannot be ascertained, then the author can use the work in a very limited fashion. SO LONG AS, they attribute the use of the copyrighted work in any derivative works.

Additionally, IF the bill was the be enacted into law, it would not require any copyright registrations, that would be a violation of the United States participation in many international copyright and IP law treaties (e.g., WIPO, Berne Convention, TRIPS agreement, etc.) (IP = Intellectual Property, btw)

This is actually a good thing for the little guys, it would allow you to use works you cannot find the author to (i.e., that WWII photo you found in grandpa’s attic), that are still in copyright, and not be liable for heavy copyright infringement liability. It does not completely alleviate users of “orphans” from monetary liability, but it keeps the penalties WAY down, so long as you can prove a “diligent search” and attribution.

Finally, the US copyright cost to register a work (which remember, is NOT required, BUT does have advantages if you ever have to litigate (i.e., take them to court) against someone’s infringement of your work) is $40 per work. But again this is NOT required by law, as of 1976, as soon as you put pen to paper, or finger to keyboard, or any other “tangible” medium, your work is protected by copyright law (so long as its original, and doesn’t infringe on anyone else’s copyright)

It would be beneficial to all of us if authors of these articles would to their own diligent searches before calling the masses to oppose legislation that would actually help most “little guys”

Here is a good summary of the US copyright’s office report on Orphan works, (the full report is over 200 pages long):

http://www.edwardsamuels.com/c.....rks.htm#**

I understand why some people want this bill passed… and for the honest few, I do agree they should have some way to use some things if they truly HAVE put a reasonable effort into finding the owner, and more importantly, if the work can not be re-created. i.e. historically significant items or something like that. But I don’t believe it’s written like that, and I DO think the law will be taken advantage of, so I truly hope this bill fails.

Regarding “Angry Artists” statement “This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view!”
That’s just silly. If you don’t bother to register your work now, you already don’t have much protection. It’s not expensive to register your work (you can register an entire collection as a single body work, i.e. call it 2007-2010, and register everything for one fee) If you’re not registering it anyhow (whether this passes or not) your level of protection won’t change much. It’ll be minimal either way.

I’m an artist too, and I’m also low on funds, but if you can afford the computer you’re using to complain about this bill, you can afford the $35 to register your work.

MAKE SOME NEW STUFF, STOP LEACHING OFF THE PAST!

PAY SOMEONE TO MAKE SOMETHING NEW!

I am a new Illustrator. I don't have ANY money to spend on copyright.
I need free protection! This law would force me from posting my artwork online for public view!

This is going to destroy the release of new information that can be viewed but not sold by the public!

I'm so angry… I'm writing the government officials.