My only concern is how is "reasonable compensation" determined? In my experience the value of a copyrighted work can have very different "reasonable" values depending on who you ask. In these days of $1 royalty free stock art. It seems that a case could be made that my image is worth far less than I would have ever agreed to license it for had I been contacted beforehand.

As a copyright holder I have the right to charge egregious fees if I wish to. I might not sell any images that way but it is my right. Under this proposal a company could use my image without permission, and I am due reasonable compensation. So who determines what is reasonable? Is it based on the rates I would normally charge? What if someone considers my standard rate unreasonable?

I am not saying that the Orphan Works proposal is bad but I would love some further legal clarification as to how reasonable is determined before I support it.