Mr. Happy wrote:Learn to read Meotwister, the rebuttal is old. The current bill is posted higher up on the site
I'll admit I didn't see the update post that had the bill, but please don't be so callous in a serious discussion thread.
I want to say I'm not supporting the bill but I want people to make an informed decision on it.. not loaded up by some organization that says, "Hey, we got the information, we interpreted it, we did all the thinking for you now listen to us and react!" I dislike it when either side gets so riled up with their opinion, even though they've read up a bit on the subject they encourage others to just listen to them and join me and not read up on it from objective sources.
If you guys want to make the best decision for yourself and not what other people say you should do, read the 'summary' of the bill on Pat Leahy's government website
here. The summary is the 3rd section The Shawn Bentley Orphan Works Act of 2008, though the previous sections are good to read as well.
Mr. Happy from what I've read it seems like the whole reason for the bill is that there are many orphaned works that corporations or businesses want to use but can't because they don't want to risk the possibility of statutory damages of up to $150,000. If a good faith infringer, uses your work than you can get compensation before any litigation. Supposing you don't agree with the infringer on the compensation you can litigate it and then the corporation has to provide documentation of their qualified search (as determined in individual circumstances by the courts).
*interesting side note is the Copyright Office has to make publicly available a statements of best practices that have ways of finding the original artists such as electronic databases, private registries, Copyright Office records, and more*
The corporation could then assert a right to limitation on remedies, in which this case the court could end up compensating the owner of the artwork, unless the infringer was a non-profit organization like an educational institution, public broadcast entity, museum, library, archive AND the infringer can show the usage of the work was not for commercial advantage and was primarily educational, religious, or charitable in nature.
Plus things like Derivative Works and Fair Use are still protected under this.
All taken from the official summary not a blog or partisan organization website.