PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · May 22, 2006
Orphan Works Act of 2006 - Limits the remedies available in a copyright infringement action if the infringer proves that: (1) the infringer performed and documented a reasonably diligent search in good faith to locate the copyright owner before using the work, but was unable to locate the owner; and (2) the infringing use of the work provided attribution to the author and owner of the copyright, if known.
Requires the Register of Copyrights to make information available from authoritative sources to assist users in conducting and documenting a reasonably diligent search.
Permits an award of reasonable compensation for the use of the infringed work, except if: (1) the infringement is performed without any commercial advantage and for primarily a charitable, religious, scholarly, or educational purpose; and (2) the infringer ceases the infringement expeditiously after receiving notice of the claim for infringement.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Allows the court to impose injunctive relief to prevent or restrain the infringing use, but such relief shall account for harm caused to the infringer due to reliance on having performed a reasonably diligent search. Prohibits the court from imposing injunctive relief that restrains the continued preparation or use of a new work that recasts, transforms, adapts, or integrates the infringed work with the infringer's original expression in a new work of authorship if the infringer pays reasonable compensation and provides attribution to the copyright owner.
Requires the Register of Copyrights to conduct an inquiry with respect to remedies for copyright infringement claims seeking limited amounts of monetary relief, including consideration of alternatives to disputes currently heard in the U.S. district courts.
People & committees
Rep. Smith, Lamar [R-TX-21] · R–TX
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote .
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 15, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.5439 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.5439 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.5439 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.5439 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.