I'm rewriting my post about this entirely, and have deleted my first, because I've been reading deeper into the report and I hate to say it... but I think we're jumping to conclusions. Please, hear me out and if I've missed something, please do point it out with viable source (ie, quotes and page links please!). I'm trying to get to the bottom of this and find out what it's really about and at a first glance, yes, it's scary! But I think we're misunderstanding what it's all about.
Read the 2015 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization Report.
• Now. First assumption is "they're taking out rights to our own art away!?"...no, not really. In fact not at all!
Let me explain. Orphaned works mean simply that; works with no owner. Or in the case stated many times in the first few pages of the report, cases where the artist cannot be found/contacted after "diligent search". Meaning you REALLY TRY HARD to find the original artist if you want to use something, and if you really can't find the owner/artist/author: the copyright holder, then, and only then will it be considered orphaned and thus fall under the fair use rule set.Namely, for those of us who are on DA and other sites posting our original works, we will still hold rights to them.
• It then goes on to say that if the copyright holder of a piece of art DOES come forward after the fact, they can still fight it.
As for the mass digitization aspect, this is stated clearly on page 14:"Give copyright owners the right to limit the grant of licenses with respect to their works or to opt out of the system entirely;"
Meaning that if we don't want our work to be used or pooled for free use, we don't have to agree to it.
The tl;dr of the whole report can be summed up with "If you can't find the copyright holder and can prove you tried, then you can buy ownership and use it how you want", and "if you don't want your art being pooled for free use, you don't have to let it be". So all in all, if we can prove our copyrights to a work, then it's still our work, just as it is now. This is simply clarifying how to go about using something if you don't know who the artist/author is.
It also looks like this non profit bit is ONLY for orphaned works being re-obtained/reused by a new artist/author; namely, you can have rights to it if you can't find the original artist, but only select rights.
Like I said, feel free to correct me if you feel I'm wrong, but please read the report and give me the page number or section so I can check it further.Update:
Thanks to Link2262
for sharing this article
. It's basically saying everything I said (but with a better grasp on legal terminology, and a bit more colorful language in areas) and is definitely worth reading into.