Seems like this --> [link] is the latest hotbutton issue to hit the dA echo-chamber. While I sympathize with authors/artists, I can't help but wonder if this issue is being misrepresented. I've already posted this as a comment in a couple places, but rather than try to spam my reply to everyone in my watchlist that posted about this, I figure that it'd probably just be better to write my response in a journal article.

All that said, I'd like to see more about this issue before I decide. The linked article seems a bit scant on details of the actual bill--as in references to the text of the thing. It says a lot of Bad Things (tm) will happen, but without any proof that that's what the bill actually says.

Now, for the record, I definitely think reasonable artist's rights should be protected, and if the law doesn't provide adequately for them, then I am most definitely against it... However, copyright, as it stands now, has a lot of issues, and I don't believe that copyright should be perpetual either. Author's lifetime, sure. An acceptable number of years for corporations, absolutely. But I see no reason for copyright that extends beyond the lifetime of an author, or that absolutely prevents anyone else from ever creating a derivative work of a corporate work, or reprinting an out-of-print book. Technically, copyright has a limited lifetime, but it seems like every time we get close to the end of that lifetime for big companies like Disney and what have you, they lobby for another extension.

While an orphan works bill doesn't solve this problem directly, it would--in theory; I don't know how *this* bill is worded--allow copyrights to lapse on works that the author/artist no longer has interest in, freeing it up for many potential uses, like derivative works. It allows elements of our common culture to be built upon and enriched. Copyright was always intended to encourage the creation of new works and such... but it's also important for works to *continue* to benefit the public after its creators have moved on. Since it's late, and I'm not really waxing eloquent at this hour, here's a link that expresses roughly what I feel about copyright: [link]

As far as orphan works go, if it's implemented in such a way that 1) there is still a good period of time (like, say, 20 years or so) before a work can be even be considered an orphan work, and the ability to maintain non-orphaned status is kept extremely reasonable so that authors have to spend little effort and no money (preferably) to keep them from becoming orphaned works, then I could see myself supporting it. If those conditions aren't met, then I'd agree with most people here, it's probably not good legislation--though I still agree with the theory of orphaned works legislation. Like I said, I would like to see a more well-reasoned review of it than a knee-jerk response.

Anyway, here's a link that takes a less vitriolic standpoint and has links to a couple other view points:
[link]
And another take on the issue (decidedly pro-orphan works bias, but still fairly evenhanded):
[link]

Update!
Here are some more links about the issue; seems that I was correct in that it's not nearly as bad as people are thinking, though there are issues that graphic artists are particularly concerned about:

seems to have some links on their journal [link] that are relevant to the issue. This one in particular is pretty thorough: [link]

There's also this dA news entry that also seems to treat things in a much more clear-headed fashion: [link]

And, finally, according to a link found by the bill may be dead on arrival anyway: [link]