VSGal wanted to bring 3 major issues to your attention this issue.  She has her opinion, others have their opinion, but either way, you need to KNOW about these!

1) The FDA Globalization Act of 2008 – In VSGal’s opinion -  it hurts small business owners from the beauty industry - Site no longer available (try Googling it!) - "This video summarizes the Indie Beauty Network's position against the Discussion Draft of the FDA Globalization Act of 2008, the legislation that would put thousands of Indies out of business by forcing them to pay outrageous registration fees and comply with burdensome paperwork. If passed, this law would drive consumers back to the days when they could only choose between a few huge, faceless, nameless big box stores and brands for their cosmetics and personal care products. And fewer consumer choices always leads to higher prices."

2) The Digital Millenium Copyright Act or DMCA - what is it, and how it is impacting YouTube subscribers, etc. I found out about this from Paul Robinett's Renetto You Tube Channel. Paul Robinett started out as my favorite Candle Guy, and he's since grown in fame and business size, etc. Another good link is for the EFF. This is especially important for the BLOGGERS & VLOGGERS of this world. Do you know if you could be accidently violating a copyright law?

Do you KNOW?  What if a big corporation filed a DMCA against you?  Would you know what to do?

One VLOG example that Paul Robinett mentions in one of his videos, is about a mother who took a digital movie of her small child playing. In the background she had the radio on, playing a Prince song. Universal filed a DMCA against her for using the song.
VSGal’s thoughts - WTF? What a bunch of crap, she was in no way saying she had WRITTEN the song, she just was taking a movie of her baby.-

3) Orphan Works issue -Definition from Wikipedia "An orphan work is a copyrighted work where it is difficult or impossible to contact the copyright holder."

The American Society of Media Photographers (ASMP) - of which VSGal and her husband are members - have been fighting the 2006 bill, and here is their Stance on this issue concerning the House of Representative;s version of the bill.  See link for more info.

What the heck is the big deal?  Here is VSGal’s synopsis:

The big debate is how much responsibility is on the Copyright holder (aka Photographer for example) versus the person wishing to use the image (or whatever copyrighted item). The best solution (other than duking-out the details of the bill), is to include copyright information in the Metadata of each image, as well as put a line of credit - meaning mentioning the photographer's name or url - next to each image used - to assist with the "I couldn't find out who's work this is" excuse.  The problem is people COULD use another person's work, but say "oh I tried to find out who owns the copyright but I couldn't find it" and then use it anyway. How do we know if they "really tried?" Copyright is the visual artist (Photographer or otherwise)'s BREAD AND BUTTER. You take that away, and then what do you have?  

Also, there are hackers out there, who know how to strip the metadata off of the images.  So even if the photographer or visual artist DID protect their work, someone could still find it, strip the data, and then declare that it was an “orphan work” and they couldn’t find the original copyright holder.  This is a danger we have in the digital world.

If there is legislation passed that allows the general public to declare something as an “Orphan Work” and then use it without doing their homework, and without fear of copyright lawsuits, we are in BIG trouble.