Legal liabilities for non profit organizations

I have chosen to integrate a non profit organization into my business plan. I quickly discovered that similar rules and regulations of a for profit business apply to a non profit organization just as well. There are oftentimes problems with common people using copyrighted material from non profits or vice versa where non profits think that being a non profit entitles them to fair use on copyrighted materials. Both cases are sufficiently incorrect. Below, I outlined three court cases associated with non profits in order to gain a better understanding of their legal liabilities.

Answers in Genesis v. Creation Ministries International

www.internationallawupdate.com

This 2007 court case between Answers in Genesis (AiG) and Creation Ministries International (CMI) broke out because of accusations against AiG’s leader, Ken Ham. Mr. Ham was blamed for not representing the US office appropriately and not gaining permission from the publishers of the CMI offices. The US office blatantly deceived CMI customers and used the shared trademark without authorization.

In my opinion, since AiG (the US office) and CMI (the international office) are non profit organizations working together for the common good, they should have been more specific on what areas were to be conducted together and which areas could be worked on individually. AiG and CMI should have discussed trademark, copyright, website sharing, and control of affiliate regulations, and then they should have proposed a written contract.

Montana Supreme Court v. Charles M. Bair Family Museum

http://chronicle.com

This 2008 court case between The Montana Supreme Court and Bair Family Museum is closely followed in the non profit sector because of its importance in dealing with trustees who pass away. The Bair Family Museum was unjustifiably closed in 2004, but later reopened after reviewing the case. Lawyers soon realized that the trustee originally opened the museum with purposes of charitable giving, not to make a profit for the Bair family.

In my opinion, just because the trustee in the former case had passed on, it does not mean that the museum can be dealt with in a way other than what the trustee originally intended. The trustee’s preplanning must be honored and followed through on. Donations must be spent as stipulated by the trustee. In my opinion, non profits must work harder to eradicate selfish behavior and comply with the law.

AOSI v. USAID

http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/aosi_v_usaid/

This 2006 court case between the Alliance for Open Society International (AOSI) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) was a case where the First Amendment right came into question. USAID penalized AOSI because they felt the privately funded organization was not adapting to the anti-prostitution pledge.

In my opinion, the anti-prostitution pledge prohibits speech in violation of the First Amendment. AOSI is a privately funded organization helping in the fight against HIV/AIDS. The organization should not have to censor their privately funded speech, and especially not be extracted from federal funding. USAID should recognize that they are potentially eliminating a lifesaving non profit organization.

References:

Abel, Laura. May 11, 2010. Brennan Center For Justice. AOSI v. USAID. Court Cases. Challenging Global AIDS Funding Restrictions.

Gose, Ben. May 15, 2008. The Chronicle of Philathropy. Montana Court Ousts Board of Museum. Vol 20. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from http://chronicle.com.

Transitional Law Associates, LLC. Feb 1, 2009. International Law Update. Arbitration. Vol 15. Retrieved March 6, 2011 from www.internationallawupdate.com