Re: There are no transaction costs when a photographer sells a picture to a newspaper.
So, how does the newspaper find your photo to buy it in the first place, if it costs neither of you anything whatsoever to sell it to them?
In the real world, either the photographer is paying an agent to pitch their photos to the newspapers, they pitch the photos themselves, or the newspaper is paying people to search out photos. Usually all three.
Only the last one costs the photographer nothing - but the photographer almost always gets nothing for them either, because the paper will use the first decent 'free' one they find.
For example, Getty Images is an agency and many freelance photographers have arrangements with a few editors.
The article appears to be describing a way of linking multiple Getty Images-type exchanges together.
As long as you're able to control the price at which your work is sold, then it is to the good - more exposure, and lower cost of doing business.
There is of course a risk of the registries becoming full of useless tat, so newspapers etc don't bother - a risk that becomes practically certain if the 'orphan works' insanity progresses any further.
That would effectively mean not being on these registers would end up 'orphaning' your work, so it's yet another reason why that "orphan works" land-grab needs to be smashed back into both the EU and especially UK Plc's collective faces.
Repeat after me - there is NO SUCH THING as an orphaned work.