Orphan Works Legislation again...meh

So the hobgoblin known as the Orphan Works Act of 2008 has reared its ugly head again and sent artists into a panic. The legislation has passed the Senate. When I first heard about this legislation I was very upset and scared because I was told that it meant I would lose the copyright to my work if I did not register each and every drawing and photograph with an electronic database...or three databases, depending on who you talked to. And of course there would be a fee to register each piece of work, which would make it financially impossible for me to continue selling art and photography and would effectively put an end to my being an artist.

This time, however, when the legislation came up again, I decide to do some research on my own rather than just accepting what everyone else was telling me. I made some discoveries. While I am still against the legislation because it does weaken our ability to protect our copyrights and it does limit the damages we can seek if our work has been infringed (which by the way is the purpose of the bill, to limit damages), I've found that the rumor about forced registration of our work is patently untrue.

I read the legislation. I had my husband read it. We didn't see anything about artists losing their copyrights if they don't register it. What we did find is instructions that the Register of Copyrights certify one or more electronic databases to facilitate a diligent search for copyright owners IF the databases are feasibly workable and not prohibitively expensive. Now people will say "but what does due diligence mean? No one knows!" Not true. Due diligence is a legal term that has a definite meaning. Also in the legislation is the following language which suggests the the person searching for the owner of an orphan work might be charged a fee, NOT the copyright owner:

`(D) technology tools and expert assistance, including resources for which a charge or subscription fee is imposed, to the extent that the use of such resources is reasonable for, and relevant to, the scope of the intended use;

So it seems pretty clear to me that the whole "required registration" deal is NOT a part of this legislation. That being said, again, I am still against the legislation. I just want to understand what exactly it is that I am against. I would suggest that anyone interested in this issue actually read the bill so you will know what it is you are advocating against.

EDIT: Friday, October 3, 2008.

People, please. Do you HONESTLY think that we could pass a law in the United States that would make demands on people in other countries who have never been here and aren't doing business here? Do you really think that there is any way we can require artists in other countries to register their creations in our "databases"? DO YOU REALLY BELIEVE that there could ever be a feasible, workable, affordable database that would hold a record of every artistic creation and photograph of every artist IN THE WORLD? Do you think that these things are actually possible? Of course they are not. It's absurd.

Let me tell you what I did to quell the insanity over the Orphan Works Act of 2008. I unsubscribed myself from getting emails from the Illustrator's Partnership, and I told them why, that I was tired of getting false inflammatory emails from them. I feel better already. You should all try it.