This is a letter written by Google executives as a response to the Copyright Notice of Inquiry regarding orphan works.  It describes Google and the services it offers, most notably Google Print, which aims to make searching for books and their content as easy as searching for Web sites.  The letter also outlines how Google is directly impacted by the problems presented by orphan works, namely that they “show much more limited information on the assumption that that is what the copyright holder would prefer,” even though “that assumption is often wrong.”  Finally, the letter proposes a two-step solution to the orphan works problem:  (1) the creation of a simple, accurate and reliable searchable database and (2) changing the Copyright Act to preclude users of orphan works from infringement liability while ensuring that copyright holders do not lose their copyright due to failure to adhere to a formality. 

As the king of Internet search, Google, on a mission to digitize all knowledge, is an important source for my paper.  The company openly admits in the letter that it plans to exploit the Orphan Works Act to make material available online through its search engine that it cannot currently because it doesn’t know who to ask for permission to use the work, whether for a fee or for free.  The orphan works bill is essentially a goldmine for Google, giving the company access to millions of works that are currently not being used for fear of copyright infringement.  Although Google will use the orphan works for personal motives, i.e. commercial use, I think this is the type of use the writers of the bill had in mind and, ultimately, the type of use the writers of the Copyright Clause approve to “promote the progress.”  However, while I think Google Print could be quite beneficial in making orphan books and publications accessible, I think doing the same for orphaned photos and other visual art could be more difficult and perhaps harmful to artists because these works are often dissociated from their authors and might show up on Google searches without bylines or any sort of identification.  That said, to solve this issue, I think Google is best-equipped to create the very registries it so enthusiastically endorses in the letter.