> If I use a presumably abandoned work as a jumping off point to a billion dollar franchise and then the original copyright holder comes out of the woodwork to claim 50% of everything I've made will the government escrow cover that?
It would be the same as any other statutory licensing system, where once the government grants you permission to use the work, and you pay the statutory fees, the copyright holder has no claim to any rights in your derivative works. The only right they have at that point is to the fees, and it is between them and the government as to whether they are the rightful copyright holder, no reason to involve you.
Again, I think this would work smoother if all works had say 20 years of full copyright protection, just like today, and then another 20 subject to statutory licensing. Then in that second period there would be no dispute over whether you, the third party, had the right to use the work, the only dispute is over who gets the statutory fees, and the government agrees to be the middle man in situations where that is not clear, so that uncertainty of ownership won't stifle use.
> In this case isn't the government stealing from the copyright holder and/or public domain?
Stealing implies that either the copyright holder or the public have some inherit ownership right in the work, however their rights are only what the law grants them. In this system, works would not enter the public domain until after the second period is over, so the public domain has no rightful claim to them (orphaned or not). In the second phase of copyright, the holder would no longer have absolute right to control the work, and only limited rights in setting prices. Anyone could redistribute or make derivative works (subject to trademark law, etc), as long as they paid the statutory fees. If a copyright holder abandons the work, then you cannot blame the government for treating the fees similar to other abandoned property.
It would be the same as any other statutory licensing system, where once the government grants you permission to use the work, and you pay the statutory fees, the copyright holder has no claim to any rights in your derivative works. The only right they have at that point is to the fees, and it is between them and the government as to whether they are the rightful copyright holder, no reason to involve you.
Again, I think this would work smoother if all works had say 20 years of full copyright protection, just like today, and then another 20 subject to statutory licensing. Then in that second period there would be no dispute over whether you, the third party, had the right to use the work, the only dispute is over who gets the statutory fees, and the government agrees to be the middle man in situations where that is not clear, so that uncertainty of ownership won't stifle use.
> In this case isn't the government stealing from the copyright holder and/or public domain?
Stealing implies that either the copyright holder or the public have some inherit ownership right in the work, however their rights are only what the law grants them. In this system, works would not enter the public domain until after the second period is over, so the public domain has no rightful claim to them (orphaned or not). In the second phase of copyright, the holder would no longer have absolute right to control the work, and only limited rights in setting prices. Anyone could redistribute or make derivative works (subject to trademark law, etc), as long as they paid the statutory fees. If a copyright holder abandons the work, then you cannot blame the government for treating the fees similar to other abandoned property.