they are not required to display a copyright or author.

which would make a valuable case to stick your contact info and copyright into the iptc of every image you send out.  Sure someone change change it or claim it wasn't there, but if an image gets so largly spread that it becomes an 'orphan', there is bound to be a large number of those images with the iptc info intact.

i didn't say people couldn't delete the exif info, just that very few would.

the majority of people don't know about it, and only a small percentage of those who do know about it (the evildo-ers) would erase it to pretend they didn't know it was copyright.

From the other forum:

http://www.asmp.org/news/spec2006/orphan_faxcall.php

Quote:

"The U.S. Copyright Office issued its report on Orphan Works only a couple of weeks ago. The end of that report contained proposed language for an amendment to the Copyright Act. That proposal is now being fast-tracked in Washington with a good chance of passage before the end of this Session. In my opinion, if that language is enacted in its current form, it will be the worst thing that has happened to independent photographers and other independent visual artists since Work Made for Hire contracts.

Orphan works are basically works whose copyright owners cannot be located. The term "Orphan Works" is really a dangerously misleading phrase. It makes it sound as if it includes only a few works that are not valued enough by their creators to warrant taking care of them. That may be true for owners of many kinds of copyrights. However, the reality is that for independent photographers and illustrators, the majority of your published photographs may well become Orphan Works. The reason for that is that, unlike just about every other category of copyrighted works, photographs and illustrations are typically published without any copyright notice or credit to the photographer or illustrator. The one exception to that has traditionally been editorial uses, but even there the trend seems to be away from providing credit lines. As more and more photographs are published on the Internet, credits become even rarer. Worse, even if you registered your photographs at the Copyright Office, there is no mechanism for identifying you or your photograph or for locating you through those records, if the user does not know your name.

Under the proposed legislation, a person or other entity who wants to use a copyrighted work is required to make only a "good faith, reasonably diligent search" to locate the copyright owner. If, after making such a search, the user is unable to locate the copyright owner, he/she/it gets an almost free license to use the work. If the copyright owner never comes forward, the user gets to use the work for free. Even if the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, the MOST the copyright owner can get is "reasonable compensation," i.e. a reasonable license fee for the use actually made. There is NO possibility of statutory damages or attorneys' fees, even if the work was registered before the use was made without your permission.

Wait, it gets worse: If the copyright owner discovers the use and demands payment, "where the infringement is performed without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage, such as through the sale of copies or phonorecords of the infringed work, and the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement, no award of monetary relief shall be made."

The fact that the potential compensation is so low presents a fatal impediment to collection: if you discover one of your works being used and demand only your reasonable licensing fee, but the person refuses to pay, you cannot afford to sue to collect the minimal amount to which you are entitled. Without the possibility of an award of attorneys' fees or statutory damages, no lawyer would take your case; and if he or she did, you would end up paying far more legal fees than you could possibly collect.

The bottom line is that, even if you have done everything right, including registering your photographs immediately at the Copyright Office, every photograph that you publish may be up for grabs if it doesn't have a published credit. Yes, people have to contact publishers to try to identify and locate you, but if that doesn't produce your name and/or contact information for any reason, they may be entitled to a free, or almost free, pass."

This isn't all that's happening, unfortunately.  The latest edition of Digital Photo Pro has an article about the U.S. Trademark Dilution Revision Act.  In essence, if passed, this Act would allow any company with the resources to sue any artist (including us) for copyright infringement whenever its logo or other copyrighted image appeared in an image.  Essentially, the fair use provisions for intellectual property are being erased.  It doesn't matter if your image is stock, editorial, or for a gallery showing:  The artist can be sued.  Non-commercial use of copyrighted images--like Mickey Mouse, for instance, or the McDonald's "M"--are no longer protected.

Get out the clone stamp, boys and girls.  We're in for a bumpy ride.

This is a concern.  Has anyone heard of the "orphan image" rules that they are trying to indroduce to US copywrite legislation.

I saw it on another forum (yes I am a forum whore).  Dont have time to post now but will come later.

Basically, if they cant find the owner of an image, they can use it without payment.