Results tagged “donations” from Uncivil Society
Tera Patrick's Mistress Couture runway show approaches the event horizon for do-gooding, sex and design.
Above: the Facebook page for Porno Bingo, a weekly New York gathering that "has raised nearly $70,000 for Manhattan based GLBT non profits." Will Clark World has more on Porno Bingo and other charity events.
Katy Perry--whose "I kissed a girl" has become an international hit--has a cast made of her breasts. The bust of her bust will be auctioned off for Keep-a-breast.org.
The world may now know Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee, but folks in the charity biz no doubt remember her work in creating the charitable check-off provision for Alaskans receiving a Permanent Fund Dividend from the state's oil revenue. Under this new law, residents can donate part or all of their annual oil dividend to qualifying charities.
What?
You don't remember this?
Well, it was big news in Alaska, anyway. They even took a picture of her at the bill's signing, in a room with all the other residents of the state:
On sidewalk today: a United Homeless table selling Tropic Thunder & other bootleg DVDs.
TMZ reports that chic boutique Kitson couldn't sell clothes by The Hills' Lauren Conrad, so it gave them away to a Caitlin's Closet, a charity established by "Miss America's Outstanding Teen 2008" that provides prom dresses & such to kids who can't afford them.
You know, when I created my charity, Caitlin’s Closet, I made a lifelong commitment to help other teens. I wanted to make sure that every girl in high school, regardless of her economic status, would have the opportunity to attend her prom, homecoming dance, academic awards or sports banquet. And while I know that what everyone sees is the dress, this is about SO much more than the dress. Caitlin’s Closet gives teens the chance to gain confidence, create lifetime memories, practice social skills and fully participate in school events. I’m so excited to be involved in that transformation!
The comments in the TMZ thread indicate that the reason for the donation could be somewhat more personal & that LC's clothing line still sells well in Bloomingdale's. Whatever the situation, let's hope that Caitlin's Closet got good stuff, because it's a worthwhile project.
No, not those kind of earmarks--I mean donations made to a charity but designated to benefit an individual. Typically such gifts are not tax-deductible, since the gift is going to serve specified persons rather than an indefinite charitable class. But this law-related fundraiser going around the blogosphere is claiming otherwise. The cause: a blogger alleged by his ex-wife to be an unfit parent because he is bisexual.
I'm not going to state an opinion on the case itself, but I personally would be a bit more cautious re the claims of deductibility in the fundraising. The IRS does not tend to look kindly on deductions for personal earmarks, and if it gets the sense that the charity is little more than a flow-through fundraising for private parties going through divorce and custody battles it could get a bit cranky with the 501(c)(3) as well.
There's at least one way you could structure the distribution so that it that might--no guarantees--survive an audit or appeal, but who wants to go through that? At the very least, I'd omit the second sentence in the following appeal, which is something of a red flag:
Please consider a tax-deductible contribution to help us help him and others similarly situated. Contributions earmarked for this case will be disbursed accordingly.
Of course, your legal mileage may differ, as the SFLDEF's apparently does, so do what you feel you can and don't listen to me, because, let's face it, I'm just some dopey blogger. If you want to learn more about the case itself, here's a post that folks are linking back to as a hub for the effort, but you might not want to click there unless your boss is into vividly illustrated online Sex Carnivals.
The Pro Bono Junkie's Blog has an insightful post on the harsh financial reality of the Facebook Causes app.
Harsh, I mean, for most of the nonprofits that think they'll rake in big bucks:
If my experience is the common one, that means that nonprofits spent $300 million dollars in staff time to generate those $3 million in donations. The Taproot Foundation is not a typical nonprofit and we don't traditionally appeal to individual donors. So, let's be generous and say that it is only a $10 to $1 ratio.
Sean is brilliant. He got nonprofits to spend $30 million dollars in the last year to drive traffic to his site. The best part is that he is being heralded as a saint for doing it.
The star of Firefly and Doctor Horrible's Sing-Along Blog conjures money for charity with a wave of his hand.
Ever wonder how so much crap ends up in thrift stores? This tweet tells the tale--for many folks, donations = things that no one else will buy.
Bill Gates has long been one of my favorite classroom examples of someone who grasped the value of network effects--commonly referred to as the bandwagon effect--in building a business. In short, the more people who use your product, the more other potential users will see it as valuable. Back when web browsers and office software were relatively new, Microsoft used free distribution and price-competition to gain significant market share.
However, now that other companies have used the same strategy to gain dominance in areas where Microsoft had little presence, what can the company do to catch up?
One strategy: get people to feel that downloading Microsoft software is a charitable way to help children.
This online charitable outreach from Microsoft Australia that has folks there buzzing about Microsoft's generous digi-do-goodery. After all, Microsoft offers to give a dollar to charity merely if you watch a video for Microsoft Office, which is not much of a self-serving pitch because you probably already have it!
But look carefully and you'll see a brilliant bit of corporate strategy. In order to watch the video, you have to download Silverlight, Microsoft's attempted Flash-killer. That charitable download adds one more user in Microsoft's bid for market share. As this article indicates, the battle between Adobe and Microsoft is going to be so fierce, and it appears that charity is Microsoft's weapon of choice.
UPDATE: Digital Influence Group, a social media marketing group, ups the ante here.
Above: Be careful what you wish for . . .
Remember a week or so ago when I posted that charity is not a viable defense to IP infringement? Some well-meaning folk in the charity biz said I was being "contentious," but the fact is, this is the law. You can defy it or pretend it doesn't exist, but if you do there can be serious consequences.
Case in point: the cancellation of the Say It Backwards Superman auctions for Candlelighters. Whether or not you think the move is good PR, Time Warner--if it did indeed file the objection--has solid legal grounds for asking eBay to pull the items containing its trademarks or copyrighted characters.
Why would a company risk a backlash by taking action against charity? And what about the common practice of artists selling commissioned works featuring DC or Marvel heroes? I'm in the middle of grading exams so our overview will have to be brief, but here are a few important things to note:
Superman: Note that the first two auctions targeted for withdrawal featured Superman. As we've discussed at length elsewhere, DC is in a particularly sensitive situation regarding profits derived from this character. If there were any property that Time Warner lawyers would want to control to the fullest extent possible, Superman would be it.
Charity: Even if you are donating the proceeds to charity, selling others' intellectual property or using it to solicit donations typically constitutes infringement if you do it without permission. Nonprofits have skirted by on this for years, but the market is growing too large to ignore.
Maintaining the mark: Even if it is infringement, why would a company want to take money away from a charity? The following observation from Counterfeit Chic applies to DC as well--
The simplest answer is that their job is to protect [the company's] trademarks. And, legally speaking, they're supposed to object to unauthorized commercial distribution of those marks. A trademark holder that doesn't enforce its rights can ultimately lose them, as the marks may be considered abandoned or even generic. Every time you ask for a Kleenex instead of a tissue or make a Xerox instead of a photocopy, a trademark lawyer somewhere gets another grey hair.
The first sale doctrine: A commenter on Boing Boing brought up the first sale doctrine, but that doesn't apply here. In a nutshell, the first sale doctrine is what allows you to sell or otherwise dispose of an authorized copy of material that you've purchased. For example, if you bought a Superman comic you can sell or lend that copy to someone else without DC's permission. The same is true, say, for legally distributed original art from a published comic book.
However, that's not what appears to have been pulled from the auction. It seems that these drawings were unauthorized--DC never gave the artists permission to use its protected material. Even if someone else had previously purchased the items and donated them to the auction, DC had the right to try to take these drawings off the market. From a legal perspective, the items were no different from a bootleg t-shirt.
Artist commissions: Yes, it's true that a number of comic artists sell commissioned artwork depicting DC and Marvel characters, but that doesn't mean it's all legal. Some of it may indeed be authorized, expressly allowed under a provision in the artist's contract with the company. Yet absent an agreement allowing an artist to sell such work, a commission is arguably infringing a company's intellectual property to the extent that it includes trademarked or copyrighted material.
There are several reasons why DC and Marvel have turned a blind eye to such unauthorized artwork, such as the desire to maintain positive relations with certain artists or the relatively small and inconspicuous scale of the trade. However, as the market for commissioned work grows and efforts to protect company marks generally become more rigorous, the likelihood of legal action stands to increase.
In this regard, pay particular attention to the artists in SIB auction. These weren't just pros with an established relationship with DC--there were also amateurs offering their own interpretations of company characters. For instance, one of the artists listed is Paul Salvi, who, if it's the same guy, is currently one of the people trying to win a DC deal through the Zuda Comics competition.
Which brings us to . . .
Derivative works: If you read my series on Blog@, you might recall a creator who adds distinct new elements to a company's copyrighted material may hold the copyright to that original work. It's why a court held that Neil Gaiman owns Medieval Spawn, and the same legal doctrine was recently cited--unsuccessfully--by one fan artist in a lawsuit to claim the copyright in Batman Beyond.
A lawyer looking at a burgeoning trade in unauthorized art will at least think about the possibility that someone may turn around and sue DC for copyright infringement. One way to reduce the likelihood of such a suit succeeding is for the company to state that it has a policy of not reviewing unsolicited work; another strategy is to discourage artists from producing such material without a contract defining the rights.
Parting thoughts: As some have said, Time Warner could have held back or sought a negotiated solution, and it's possible that the company might relent. Nonetheless, it is also important for charities and fundraisers to understand that at a time when unauthorized copying is rampant, companies are becoming more aggressive in policing their rights. To avoid an unpleasant situation, the best time to address intellectual property issues is before the C&D.
UPDATE: SIP has a few additional comments on the situation. Because a couple of them seem to refer to this post, I'll address them:
(1) My reference to the C&D is in the last paragraph, where I was advising charities generally re what to do. I did not state that SIP itself received a C&D. I debated using something incident-specific like "takedown notice" but went with the broader term. Re the present situation, as I indicated in the second paragraph above, I'm not even stating as fact that the WB itself filed the original complaint to eBay, since I haven't seen the original notice; rather, my post simply addresses the applicable legal principles that could prompt such an action.
(2) Even if SIP meant it wryly after the fact, putting up the S-shield with the comment quoted above was not the wisest course of action if the aim is to work out an agreement to resume the charitable auction, nor does it do any favors for the aspiring professionals contributing to the auction. Lawyers are all too familiar with artists trying to make their name off of others' IP; the post in question links the blog to an agenda that they might not exactly help the contributors' own bid for advancement. This sort of thing is precisely why companies are becoming so rigorous in policing their marks.
We should add to the above another concern with which most folks supporting charity may not be familiar: namely, the heightened scrutiny of charitable fundraising and sales. Indiscriminate association of a company's marks with a charity could have serious negative repercussions for the brand. Is the money indeed going to charity? Who monitors this? Is the charity legitimate and is it using the funds effectively? If a well-meant charitable effort turns out to be problematic, it could severely tarnish the mark, which is why companies may prefer to vet a charity itself before allowing its marks to be used to raise funds.
Again, I'm speaking generally regarding the considerations that guide corporate action; I'm not making any allegations about the charity in question here or about SIP. My primary aim is to help charities understand the current environment and how they can avoid unwanted situations.
I usually skip Ben & Jerry's Free Cone Day, but after hearing for the umpteenth that charities use it as a community fundraiser I decided to give it a slog.
I took my place at the end of the long line extending down the city sidewalk. Some were college students, a few were older, and since it was just after a school there were a lot of kids, tykes with moms and others on their own ranging from fourth grade on up.
Then it happened: the charitable donation ask, and I couldn't stop laughing. The deal was that Ben & Jerry's had dedicated all the tips for the day to breast cancer charity, so an employee was walking up and down the line calling on people to give.
Except she wasn't just asking people to donate. Instead she shouted, over and over again:
"Tips for tits, people. Tips for tits!"
Today in Malibu, via NSFW AVN:
Shane's World contract girl Casey Parker has banded together with Vivid Girl Sunny Leone, Brooke Haven and Veronica Rayne to raise money for abandoned babies [today] at a charity event to benefit Project Cuddle.
"It’s basically giving a chance for unwanted babies to get another home – our goal is to raise $5,000 but we want to go all the way and raise more," Parker told AVN. "We’re putting on the whole event – there will be live bands and an auction that I am going to host including a date with Brooke Haven and surfing lessons with me."
The fundraiser will take place from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. April 29 at 31800 Mulholland Highway, Mailbu, Calif. 90265.
"Anybody that makes any donation over $400, whether it's products for the auction or a check, one of us will personally go to the office and pick it up," said Casey. "You will get a porn star in your office!"
Via Found, old currency contributed at an Ontario fundraising event:
Turns out this isn't a Powerpoint slide from the upcoming Advisors in Philanthropy conference--it's an anti-drugs ad from Montana. Still, we can never get enough advice on extreme fundraising.
Via Osocio
I was aware of the distinction but am grateful for the letter, because it illustrates one of the systemic problems plaguing the Red Cross and charity more generally. The issue is not, as some would have it, that the Red Cross is a traditional 1.0 philanthropy that hasn't adapted to the network model. Rather, it reflects a danger that is latent in many forms of networked charity.
The Red Cross isn't a monolith; it's a web of organizations tied together through a common symbol, shared principles and partnerships. It was 2.0 before there was a 1.0--the local organizations are joined together in iconography and abstract statements, but the more you get down to particulars, the less anyone outside the specific actors is involved.
On the plus side, this has enabled the Red Cross to adapt to diverse local conditions far better than a single centrally controlled group. An earthquake in California and a tsunami in India trigger different needs and require different responses, just as the politics of operating in the U.S. are far different from those elsewhere. Without the affiliated network structure, the Red Cross might never have been able to provide effective assistance anywhere for long, let only be allowed to exist.
Yet this same medium, typified by distributed responsibility, also generates systemic dysfunction. In particular, the organization on both the macro- and micro-levels exhibits a tendency to disclaim responsibility for actions or features outside one's own direct control.
Within a national Red Cross, the result can be a PR clusterf**k, akin to what we saw in the U.S. after 9/11 or the various mini-scandals in local administration. As I've examined at greater length elsewhere, the rhetoric at the time reflected this ingrained segmenting mindset--fundraising publicity was showing images of the Twin Towers and blood drives; management was saying don't give blood & spending the funds on infrastructure as allowed by the bylaws.
More globally the result can be tragic. Case in point: the International Red Cross' own admission of "moral failure" in refusing to take action to convey what it knew about the Holocaust. The organization's moral sense, both globally and on the local level, was shaped by the distribution of moral responsibility embodied in the ethic of neutrality, a value that at once promoted and subverted the group's humanitarian mission.
With regard to the present day, yes, it is true that the Red Crosses in the U.S. and Norway are legally separate in regard to their national charters. But they are also united in a common symbol and a web of contractual agreements that serve to foster collective goodwill. The significance of this shared identity only increases in an era of instantaneous global communication--the Red Cross generated by the code on a server in Norway appears the same in New York as in Oslo. While some folks may like the maudlin bait-and-switch, I can say that the reaction I've seen here has been universally negative.
If the Red Cross is to maintain trust in the long run, it needs to develop more effective means of policing its mark. Just as there are agreements as to general humanitarian principles by which all national Red Cross signatories must abide, the International Federation as well as the nationals need to consider adopting shared standards of fundraising and promotion.
This isn't being critical; it's identity management 101. If you want to use a logo to generate millions of dollars in donations worldwide, there should be standards to assure its continued integrity. A good place to start for a charity would be to agree to be honest--to avoid manipulation and misdirection in the name of a supposed greater good. This is a cause in which the Americans could take the initiative instead of disclaiming responsibility. After all, we could have a fair bit of experience in what can happen when the public feels duped.
But the broader issue here isn't the Red Cross--it's the simplistic view of network dynamics that's rife in the promotion of philanthropy 2.0. Networks can do a lot of good, but they can also exacerbate the problems that we glibly ascribe to what was done before we who know all came along.
