Look at the Viacom v. Youtube lawsuit. The content cartel doesn't give a fig for reasonable accomodations, they would squash all innovation where it might impact their bottom line.
Now, the DMCA does provide some Safe Harbor protections to Search Engine providers, but that can be defeated (by knowledge, inaction, etc.) And nothing presents policymakers (judges, legislators) from pointing to Google's admission regarding the keywords as evidence that the Copyright system needs changes.
The linked study is from 1998. It is unclear if the news source was responding to some follow-up research that was published, or (more likely) was searching the archives for some holiday-related news on a slow news day.
What the project can do is create a contractual license that says that all-comers are granted a perpetual, non-exclusive license. Even then, presumably the resulting works would be works of joint authorship, with copyright residing in all of the authors. And under the reversion provisions of US copyright law, those orchestra members, or their families, could have the licenses terminated after about 30 years.
Why are you telling me that my document is "upside down"? In a routine fax transmission, page orientation (top of the page first into the machine or bottom of the page first) is not critical because the reader can easily flip and arrange the pages to read them top to bottom. However, it is critical to our process that each page is faxed top to bottom with the top margin being fed first into the machine. Once they have been received in PTAS, fax transmitted assignments are processed strictly by electronic means. Although the PTAS software can rotate a document 180 degrees for viewing purposes, when the electronic document is extracted to generate the archival microfilm record, each page is extracted exactly as it was first received. Accordingly, a document sent "upside down" would be microfilmed upside down. To further complicate matters, because the system generated recordation and reel and frame markings on the pages would be in the opposite orientation, the resulting document would be difficult to read.
As a final word, that statement from the producers is NOT genuine. It reeks of of a forced statement that Nintendo's lawyers forced him to make at "gunpoint" (ballpoint?) to stave off community outrage.