Ok, so I started researching the orphan Works Act as it is currently making the go round and here is what I discovered:
1) If you want to read the actual document please go here: http://copyright.gov/orphan/reports/orphan-works2015.pdf This is actually the 234 page review and recommendation to congress about revisions to the current copyright acts.
2) This was a report and recommendation put together by the Registrar of Copyrights after collecting roundtable conversations, reports and looking at current and past as well as foreign copyright laws in general and in relation to "Orphan Works". This is NOT a bill currently before congress as has been commonly touted. It is also an addendum to the current copyright laws/Act and not a replacement. It is solely intended to cover "Orphan" works as those had not previously had any coverage under the prior Acts but are covered in other countries.
3) Starting on page 114 is the actual Act as recommended to Congress (note the blank date and congress number...it is not currently before Congress, thus has no number.) This is the "meat" and has some interesting things I should point out:
a) It will not allow anyone to steal your art and put it on anything they want commercially. There is actually a part under Section 1(f) that reads "EXCLUSION FOR FIXATIONS IN OR ON USEFUL ARTICLES
The limitations on remedies under this section shall not be available to an infringer for infringements resulting from fixation of a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work in or on a useful article that is offered for sale or other commercial distribution to the public. " This is specifically saying that the previous limitations on liability for people who use "good faith" orphan works do NOT apply to commercial products (mugs, tshirts, etc that are offered for sale)
b) You are not losing your copyright if works are not registered or considered "orphan". You still have legal recourse though it is limited depending on certain circumstances. However, the definition they provide of "reasonable compensation" is pretty much what you would have charged that person to use the work in the manner they did. Essentially to make the artist whole. However! In the very next part it says the limitations do NOT apply if the "infringer" fails to negotiate "reasonable compensation" or fails to PAY "reasonable compensation". It is not a free for all on your art.
c) It's actually a fairly lengthy list of what an "infringer" has to prove in order to qualify for a limitation of liability under the Act. They have to perform a diligent search and be unable to find the owner of the work AND file a Notice of Use with the Registrar of Copyrights AND provide what attribution is known about the piece AND mark the work as "orphaned" with a mark (to be determined by the Copyright office), AND must provide detailed documentation of the initial search to any Civil proceedings resulting from use of the work.
d) I know the "search" has been a sticking point for many. How do they know where to search? What databases are acceptable? Why can't they just say "I looked hard, really!" The recommended Act does say what constitutes a "diligent search" and it is thus: Search of the records of the Copyright Office AND "reasonably available" sources of copyright or licensure information (likely private or public registrars) AND technologically tools or expert assistance AND appropriate databases including those on the internet. What is really important is that Failure of the Copyright holder to respond to an inquiry or that a particular copy of the work is not labeled is NOT sufficient to deem it "Orphaned" and qualify for limitations of liability if used. This means if you usually have a watermark on your art, but one person removed it and reposted it, lack of that identifying information on that copy is not enough to call it Orphaned. Also, with all of that, just lacking registration does not make it "orphaned" and there is a provision for increased compensation for infringement if a piece IS registered.
e) The Registrar of Copyright has to create a searchable database for the Notice of Use declarations. While not perfect, this will allow artists to search the database for their works.

So, while this has gotten rather wordy, I think that covers the basics. Yes, artists should keep an eye on any changes to the Copyright Acts especially as this is not the final bill, but a recommendation made. No, it is not perfect. However, after reading through it, I would hesitate to push the panic button a this time. My work is still mine.