The Guild has been awash in questions about databases and registries with regard to Orphan Works legislation. It’s a profound area of misunderstanding promoted by people who are apparently using the common dictionary’s description instead of the two very distinct legal definitions.

The first thing to know is that neither version of Orphan Works legislation has a reference to the legal term, “registry.” 

A registry is a legally recognized entity, such as the Copyright Office, that makes a public record of ownership for the purposes of legal protection and recourse in the event of infringement. Registries normally charge a fee for the administrative work and issue a certificate and reference number for the ownership record.

A database is merely a collection of records that is searchable. These records may be of public records of ownership, books available for checkout from a library or people looking for dates on the Internet - to name a few. However, the presence of a record in a database does not confer the status of a public record of ownership. If an author has his book listed in the database of the local library, he neither receives nor gives up any ownership rights to his work, and he isn’t charged for the presence of the record.  

We urge artists everywhere to put an end to the completely false practice of using these terms interchangeably. Legal terms are designed to be very specific, because it reduces unnecessary litigation.