Charitable Giving - Do's, Don'ts, And Cautions

Charitable Giving is a cornerstone of a compassionate citizenry. Yet, it's very important that you know what you can, and can't give, and how to best give.

First - legally, if you designate a specific disaster (for example, Haitian relief) the organization is obligated to spend those funds on Haiti only. Guess what? In a few weeks, there will be another disaster, and if the organization recieves an excess amount of funds earmarked for one disaster - so much so that they can't spend it (guess what - this happens a lot!) they can't transfer those funds to other needs, so don't earmark your donation for a specific incident, let the charity manage their funds as they best can.

Second - your time is NOT a tax-deductible donation. Even if you have an hourly rate of $100, or a rate for an assignment for a charity documentary project of $750 for each day you are doing that type of documentary work, you cannot donate your services and take a deduction for that. If you incur airfare/hotel/food/shooting expenses during the trip, those you can deduct. (For more information on what is, and is NOT deductible, check out IRS Publication 526 - page 6 is where is says "You cannot deduct as a charitable contribution - 4. The value of your time or services,...")

(Continued after the Jump)

Surprise! It's NOT All About The Pictures!

Over at Rob Haggart's A Photo Editor, his article - Good News In Photography - Points out something quite interesting, which I've re-arranged for the sake of discussion:

Here are other key points to why my business is growing:

NON-Photo/Creative Related:

1. Easy To Work With
2. Flexible
3. Honesty
4. Be Polite
5. Marketing
6. Surround Yourself With Good People

Creative-Related:

1. People are really responding to my vision
2. Being a true part of the creative process
3. Personal projects



There's a lot more insight into each of those points in Rob's piece, but I want to make sure you understand that succeeding is often not about great photos, but about all manner of other things!
(Comments, if any, after the Jump)


Please post your comments by clicking the link below. If you've got questions, please pose them in our Photo Business Forum Flickr Group Discussion Threads.

PhotoShelter - Advice For The AfterStaff Circumstance

The good folks over at PhotoShelter called the other day to ask what 10 things a current staffer should do to prepare for their inevitable "switch" to freelance, and also the 10 things a newfound freelancer from the "Staff World" should do, so I gave them a few ideas, contemplated after a long spell in the shower, and I encourage you to head over there to check them out -

THE 10 THINGS ALL STAFF PHOTOGRAPHERS
MUST DO RIGHT NOW

This advice applies if you are:


1. A freelancer welcoming the former staffer now newfound freelancer into your community (help them and welcome them, dammit, don't be a selfish jerk)

2. A staffer who thinks your staff job is safe (it's not - REALLY, IT'S NOT)

3. A staffer who just was forcibly "switched" to freelance by your (now former) employer

4. The spouse or partner of a freelancer who is now worried about healthcare, rent/mortgage, and small things like where the next meal is coming from, and wants to know how to kick their freelance spouse back into gear and out of their malaise, and otherwise help.



So, go read, and be enlightened, and be thoughtful - it's a good thing for your karma.

What's In a Picture? Apparently NOT Mr. Hero to "0"!

Gilbert Arenas, known by his jersey number "0" seems to have gone from hero to a REAL zero, and then (at least temporarily) non-existent. Arenas, after apparently breaking the law by not only possessing handguns in Washington DC, but, if some reports are to be believed, brandishing them, is, according to NBA Commissioner David Stern, "...not currently fit to take the court...", then while it would stand to reason that the NBA wouldn't want the bad publicity, why would Getty Images - take down the images? Getty's "editorial policy" (here) states, in part, "...Images illustrate and reflect the events of our world today and therefore have a responsibility to be delivered to the customer with accuracy and impartiality." If this, which is an obvious follow-on to the censoring of the images from the NBA brawl (more here where Getty Images surprisingly had no images to show of the brawl), doesn't demonstrate that Getty Images is, in many ways, NOT an impartial wire service, then I don't know what would. Getty co-mingles images from their commercial clients, and those that are truly editorial/independant, with seeming reckless abandon. Getty Images is a commercial conduit in almost all manner of speaking. Try calling the AP, Reuters, or AFP, and getting them to take down a photograph "because it makes us look bad". Wouldn't happen. The only way I've ever seen a true wire-service photo taken down was when it was demonstrated that the distribution of the photo was in violation of someone elses copyright (as with JonBenet Ramsey, here) or if the photo was manipulated, as with the Reuters "picture kill"

Obama - Rights of Privacy and Publicity

Much has been made of the controversy surrounding the use by PETA and the company Weatherproof of their use without permission of the likenesses of the First Lady and President respectively.

No less than The Washington Post (PETA latest to use an ad with an Obama without permission, 1/8/10) and The New York Times (Coat Maker Transforms Obama Photo Into Ad, 1/8/10) have weighed in on this, along with countless other news outlets, and blogs. The image at right is one in question, of the President in a Weatherproof jacket in China, in this case, what seems to be a catalog page, which is a part of the larger objection to the Times Square billboard, which you can see in context in the Washington Post and New York Times links above.

The law is pretty clear - in order to use someone's likeness in an advertisement/endorsement, you need their permission. Celebrities make untold millions leveraging their likeness for all manner of product, and that is good, right, and fair, since the corporations are profiting, why shouldn't the celebrity get a piece of that when they put their good name on a product or service? Not since prior to the dawn of the internet age have we had a President so primed to be used, given their heroic status. President Clinton was the last real candidate for these types of shenanigans, and the White House had to fend off more than one use, including the use of his likeness to promote a popular sub chain in the DC area - Jerry's Subs and Pizzas, which their Big Bubba sandwich. While the family of Martin Luther King was successful in the case of Martin Luther King, Jr., in the case Center for Social Change, Inc. v. American Heritage Products, Inc., 250 Ga. 135 (1982), it is, in large part, because MLK was a private citizen, and not a public official.