http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/

Are you guys familiar with this? From someone trying to make a living in photography, this looks like a steaming pile of crap, but maybe I'm being short sighted. It seems to me that if I don't give express permission for someone to use my work, then that's that. They can't use my work. Why does this need to change?

It seems ridiculous to me. There's a clear distinction between trying to preserve history, and trying to profit from someones' work. The question should be asked; if by not crediting the author humanity is benefited in some profound way?

In case of WW2 documents and films being preserved the answer is clearly yes. In case of an ad agency trying to sell their latest steaming pile of shit by using a photo of a hot blonde, the answer is clearly no.

If it's historical in nature, a person can always be credited if their identity becomes known. The problem with commercial things is that the average person does not have the financial means of getting their rightful dues from a big ad agency or multinational company.