You're really contradicting yourself here. I can read in your article: "...the user will have to detail how he conducted the search, and if the copyright owner can demonstrate that no, actually, it is quite easy to find the work's original owner, the "good faith" provision doesn't apply. And even if the "good faith" provision does apply, the Copyright Office recommends that the user should still have to compensate the owner for a reasonable amount."

So...there you have it. Someone performs a "good faith" search, comes up with nothing, whatever the method may be, and then uses the art. It is legal to do this. How in the world can anyone know who and where every artist/photographer/etc. is? Some kind of massive list? And who will have that? Who will pay for it? What country? What organization? It's just not going to work.

And, as I've sated before, compensating the owner for a 'reasonable amount' just doesn't work. That's like borrowing a car off the street for work for the day, finding out later that it actually belongs to someone, and giving them a few bucks to legalize it, whether they're happy about it or not.