The bill, which has been seen as a threat to photographers' businesses, received intense scrutiny during its four months in the upper chamber, with photography institutions such as the British Association of Picture Libraries and Agencies, the Association of Photographers and the National Union of Journalists lobbying hard to have the bill's terms changed.

At the centre of photographers' fears is the bill's Clause 42, which will allow the Secretary of State to grant licensing powers to orphan works to a third party organisation. Under these powers, the extended licensing body could allow a publisher to use an orphan photograph provided it had made a diligent search for its author.

Photographers believe the bill could be abused by publishers, as under current law they can't publish a work without the copyright holder's authorisation.

However, the Government and the Intellectual Property Office have tried, in recent weeks and after intense media coverage and lobbying, to allay photographers' fears by refining the bill.

A "reasonable search" for a copyright holder was changed into "diligent search", forcing, in effect, publishers to exaust all routes before being able to gain a license to use an orphan work. The government was also forced to clearly define what constitute such a diligent search, as well as what is an orphan work.

Despite reassurances that the government will consult with the industry before issuing regulations for extended licensing schemes, Viscount Bridgeman, who is also a non-executive director of the Bridgeman Art Library, a photographic archive, said yesterday that it was not sufficient "rely on consultation at the stage when a body seeks authorisation because, from the point of view of a copyright owner, an individual author or performer or of a person holding an exclusive licence in a work, the effects of an extended licence being granted to different licensees can differ."

Viscount Bridgeman's statement goes at the heart of photographers' problem with the bill. A third-party licensing body, under the Digital Economy Bill terms, would be able to grant licenses to any publisher at the same "market" rate. In some cases, the image could be licensed for usage a photographer would object to - an image, for example, could be used for political or religious purposes that would go against a photographer's beliefs or convictions.

However, in its final hours in the House of Lords, the bill was further modified to ensure that any licensing body will only gain extended powers if they represent a "substantial proportion" of copyright holders. The specifications would make it impossible, in theory, for a licensing body such as DACS to grant licenses for contemporary photographs if a majority of photographers objected. However, as liberal-democrat Lord Clement-Jones pointed out in the bill's third reading yesterday, the factors to take into account before issuing licensing powers remain "somewhat vague".

But, the Lords' last attempts to have the legislation further modified to benefit photographers were in vain, as Lord Young of Norwood Green, representing the Secretary of State in the upper chamber, closed debate: "We may not have addressed every dot and comma of noble Lords' concerns, but we have tried to respond to them genuinely, and I am reliably informed that the consultation on which the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, sought an assurance will take place."

The bill was sent to the House of Commons at 5.27pm, and as Lord Young of Norwood Green added, is expected make it on the statute books. "To clarify the wash-up situation, I have been advised by someone very experienced that the Bill goes through all the stages-it is just in a telescoped manner. I cannot really say any more on that."