[1] A work can become orphaned through rightsholders being unaware of their holding, or by their demise (e.g. deceased persons or defunct companies) and establishing inheritance has proved impracticable.
In April 2009, a study estimated that the collections of public sector organisations in the UK held about 25 million orphan works.
[10] In 2009, the Strategic Content Alliance and the Collections Trust published a report[2] on the scope and impact of orphan works and their effect on the delivery of web services to the public.
[13] Whether orphaned software and video games ("Abandonware") fall under the audiovisual works definition is a matter debated by scholars.
James Boyle, one of the experts consulted for the Review, acknowledged the directive as "a start", but offered this criticism of the resulting policy:[15] In brief, the scheme is heavily institutional, statist, and inflexible.
[16] Critics cited the low numbers as evidence "that the EU approach to orphan works is unreasonably complex and won’t adequately address the problem it’s trying to fix," namely enabling mass digitization efforts.
[18][19] It differs from the EU's directive (which no longer applies in the UK)[20] in several aspects, e.g. by allowing anyone instead of just cultural institutions to submit works, while however imposing application and license fees.
Hungary,[21] India,[22] Japan,[23] Saudi Arabia,[24] and South Korea[25] have established state licensing options for orphan works.