Interesting bit of legislation. I liked the concept back in '06 but they never really did get the kinks worked out. The actual rule is nothing like as radical as that blogger makes it out to be.
My summary is more like this: If you have a work that might (or might not be copyrighted) and you make a reasonably diligent search and can't determine, you can use it. If a copyright holder comes forward, you have to pay normal licensing fees.
So as a photographer, sticking IPTC data pointing back to you should keep you reasonably safe. I suppose that someone could find a print of yours and not know how to find you. For any serious use, however, people are going to want a digital original.
The concept, as I understand it, is to allow producers of derivative works like documentaries to be able to use things like old home movies, pictures from defunct papers/magazines, and other things for which it is sometimes very difficult to find the proper owner. Under the current rules, using something like that leaves you open to nasty lawsuits.
The challenge is how to make it possible to use things for which the owner can't be found without simultaneously making it easy to use things without bothering to compensate a valid owner. For texts it is easy because you could just post a copy in a searchable registry. If someone wants to use it, they could easily find that it is registered and track you down. On the other hand, if someone hands you a wonderful photograph, how the heck do you go about finding the copyright holder and securing the rights to use it?
)
