Frequently Asked Legal Questions And How They are Answered On The Show
Remember, Legal Zoom can help you form your business no matter
which type you chose. They will file fictitious business names,
form LLC’s and Corporations along with numerous additional
services, and they keep Barely Legal on the air, and they support
this site, etc. so please try to support them whenever you can.
Sections:
Music
Tom from Burbank (Registering recordings)
Q: Joe, I have a home studio, I’ve written and recorded a few songs but I don’t want to send them around because I’m afraid someone will steal them, how do I protect myself?
A: I get this question every week. I don’t always put it on the air, but it comes every week. The easy answer is you take those songs, put them on one CD, title it something like “Tom’s Tasty Jams, Vol. I” and register them with the U.S. Copyright Office. Use form SR since you own the songs and the recordings (form PA if you only on the recordings) at costs $30 or $40 total and you’re done -protected.
Let me ask you a question though, how long have you been sitting on this stuff?
About 3 years -I know that’s a long time, but I don’t want anyone stealing my stuff.
This is a problem Tom. I’m guessing about 1 of your songs might be any good and the other two not so much. Song writing evolves as you get feedback. My advice to you is stop being so careful. You have at most one good song and it needs feedback, the other two really need feedback.
And no one is going to steal your song, Tom. Song stealing is extremely rare in the music business and you are assuming a lot if you think someone that has the ability to take a song to such a level that you hear it on your radio some day and say “hey, that’s my song,” needs your little song you recorded in your bedroom to have a hit. It just isn’t going to happen. If it does actually happen, it would most likely be the most significant thing to come out of your music career in your lifetime so send those songs out there Tom, and odds of success in this business being what they are, pray for some thievery, or some other miracle.
And please keep this in mind. If someone steals your best song, AND they get away with it; was that the only hit you had in you? If so, you were never going to make it in this town anyway so stop worrying about these first couple songs you wrote. Get them out there. You need to be able to write hundreds to have true long lasting success in the music business, which I assume is what you want.
Jacquie from Pittsburgh (Poorman’s Copyright)
Q: I have a bunch of recordings. I mean a bunch. This guy at work writes poetry, some of it’s wack but some of it’s actually pretty good. He told me that when I writes a new poem, he always mails it to himself and he calls it a “poorman’s copyright.” He says if someone steals his work, he will pull out the envelope in court and totally bust that guy because the postmark on the envelope will prove when he wrote it. Will this work?
A: Where do you guys work, Stupidco? This gives me a headache every time I hear it. What your friend is creating is evidence, and absent anything else in court, that might be interesting for about two seconds.
Put aside for a moment how easy it is to register your works with the U.S. Government for some evidence that will hold up in court, and most likely avoid court all together, and think about this. I think I’m going to mail myself a big empty and unsealed manila envelope. Then next year when Radiohead releases a new CD I’m going to record a suspiciously similar version to the first single in my basement and place a copy of it in my unsealed envelope that I mailed to myself and I’m going to then seal it. That is just as good as your friend’s self-mailed poems but mine is a fraud.
If I was in court fighting one of these cases I would have the defendant on the stand open up a series of sealed envelopes with newspapers in them published after the post marked date on the envelopes in which they are sealed. ”I rest my case your honor.” Somebody please give me the chance for some courtroom heroics like that.
My point here is that to really be protected you need real evidence. You need the best evidence. Even a copyright duly registered with the U.S. Government is not perfect evidence. It is just some evidence. Court’s don’t even have to follow the determinations of the Copyright Office. It’s like anything else in life when you’re trying to prove you did something. Notes, peoples names, postmarks, emails, it’s all evidence.
Then why register something at all?
We register copyrights because number one it is great evidence and courts usually honor it as legit, shifting the burden of proof on the other party to establish the evidence is false, which is nice. Number two is the benefits valid registration can confer.
Infringement cases are based on damages, which are a pain to prove. What would you have earned if your song weren’t stolen? Really? Prove it. Auditing the infringer’s sales is not cheap. Maybe there weren’t many actual sales, but you know it hurt you and you want to prevent a recurrence. Valid registration can result in statutory damages being awarded of tens of thousands of dollars and actual damages need not be proven.
You can also win attorneys fees from an infringer duly registered works. This is huge. If you have a possible infringement case you should be prepared to give a decent attorney a retainer of about $10,000 to even get started working for you. However, if attorney fees can be recovered by statute, you have a great chance of hiring a good lawyer on a contingency basis and they will take their fees out of the award by the court.
This is really the only way infringement cases go forward so if your works are not duly registered, you really are just puffin a lot of smoke. The other side can usually tell if you’ve got enough cash to mount an infringement claim and if you don’t, they will use that to their advantage. I think your wack poet friend would get slammed in court. In fact I’m thinking of stealing one of his poems right now since he’s such a sitting duck. The point of course is, don’t waste time listening to wack poets, go register your stuff.
Manny in Pacoima, CA (Copyrighting One’s Own Name)
Q: Hey Joe, can I copyright my name and sh*t?
A: What do you mean? And keep it clean please.
Well, you know. I want to copyright my name like and have you know, people pay me to say it and sh*t.
OK, that’s your last warning -keep it clean. I think I know what you mean and I get this question quite often. The main reason you cannot do this is because the copyright laws of this country are designed to do one thing, and that is foster commerce. They are not there for you to run a scam where you brilliantly snatch up the rights to say your name and then run around suing everyone who uses it without your permission.
Second, is that you can’t copyright any name because copyrights cover the right to copy an expression of an idea, and it doesn’t cover names of titles.
You can trademark a name to identify it with a particular product or service like Manny’s Adult Diapers or Manny’s Colonics. But to use the precious laws of this country designed to reward the hard work of creative people for your evil scams is lame and frankly Manny I think you’re better than that. And let me guess, some guy told you that at work, and said he did it or was going to do it, like he had beaten the system or something, right?
It was actually in front of the 7-11.
Well now we know that guy is an idiot and to never listen to anything he says again. So at least it wasn’t a total waste of our time.
The Creative Process: Who’s entitled to what?
Derivative Works, The Fair Use Doctrine, Can I do this? Can I do that?
Lisa from Orlando (Song writing authorship)
Q: Who owns the songs in my band? I write some of the lyrics but our guitar player writes most of the lyrics and all the music. The drummer does nothing by the way.
The basic answer is that, absent an agreement that dictates otherwise, songs are owned by whoever came up with them. By agreement, I am referring to a rare occurrence, but it does happen. My friend who plays keyboards for one of the biggest rock bands of all time was paid (as part of his retainer) to jam with the band while they worked through new material for their new album. First however, they asked him to sign an agreement that said he would make no claims of authorship to anything that came out of those rehearsals.
I advised him to sign the agreement and jam with them and contribute as much as he could. Huge bands are so often the victims of outrageous infringement claims they have to be paranoid this way to function at all. I told him that they are not going to change their mind on this process but if he played ball and was a good sport it is likely that they would award him with some song writing credit or other valuable consideration if he came up with something good that they ended up using it.
What percentage do I own if I came up with the lyrics? 50%?
There’s no hard fast rule. It’s just something you have to work out with your co-authors and the best advice I can give you is to force yourself to figure it out and put it down on paper now because it will be infinitely easier than trying to do that after even a hint of possible money enters the picture. Even though it’s distasteful to artists to talk about ownership of something like a piece of music, you’ve got to do it now. Now, now, now.
You might decide lyrics are worth 50%, for some songs, but what if you wrote the music to the smash hit “Tequila” made popular by some dudes in the 60s whose name escapes me? Are the lyrics to that song worth 50% of the value of the copyright?
Randy from Huntington Beach
Q: My bass player wrote some of our songs but I put all the guitar parts in, including some killer leads. Do I own any authorships rights in this scenario?
Again there is no hard fast rule but if I had to look into a crystal ball and imagine a musicologist on the witness stand trying to assess your contribution to the song I think it would depend on how differently the song could have turned out without your contributions. Many rock and roll songs can have all their protect-able creative elements recorded and copyrighted by just playing the chord progressions and arrangement with only a bass guitar.
Adding corresponding chords over the bass parts doesn’t meet the minimal creative effort required for copyright protection in my book. Guitar leads? Standard ones, no; but unusual guitar parts with counter melody that really make the song what it is? Maybe.
But what happens when the guitar player comes up with the next song but the bassist comes up with the bass line that drives the melody, like the one in The Start by the Jam, or Groove Is In The House” by Dee Lite, or Heaven Knows I’m Miserable Now by Smiths?
But again no rules so it’s really important to have an understanding and come up with the ownership splits right away.
David in Quebec (Music Publishing In A Band)
Q: Our band has always been a democracy but I write all the music. We released our first CD and it’s doing pretty well but it’s a struggle because we spent so much recording our record and paying to be on the Ozzfest that we are unlikely to see any royalties any time soon even though the album went platinum.
Were you guys sharing publishing income?
No
OK, let me guess, you got a giant publishing check for about six hundred thousand dollars and they are still living with their girlfriends or on a couch tour? And they hate you. Or let me be more specific -their girlfriends have told them that you are a monster and they are getting cheated, and now they hate you?
Exactly.
OK, great. This is an excellent lesson for kids in bands to learn. Publishing income is just money that people pay for the right to use the underlying song; not the recording of the song, which the whole band has an interest in, but just the song, in which only the author of the song has an interest, and for which only the author gets paid.
There is no law that says the author has to share that income with the rest of the band. In fact there are only laws that say he doesn’t have to at all. However, there are Joe Escalante’s undeniable truths. One of them is: if one band member writes all the songs and takes all the publishing income, it is only a matter of time before the girlfriend or spouse of the band mates sows the seeds of resentment that will be the demise of this band.
So it’s simple, if you don’t mind revolving band mates, and your career can survive it, keep the money. If band harmony and a steady line up are important to you, share the income. The argument is that the live performance of these songs is causing that publishing income so share it with every musician who is making sacrifices to perform live. Not the sidemen who get a salary, I mean your un-recouped band mates who live off per diems and recording advances.
Here’s how the Vandals have done it, dispute free, for 20 years.
If one of us makes a complete demo of a song with music and lyrics, or sits down and plays a song with all it’s parts already written, when we rehearse it, we improve it as a group but no one else claims authorship. It remains the original songwriter’s song. When a dollar of publishing comes in for that song we divide it this way: 50 cents goes to the songwriter directly. The other 50 cents goes to a partnership with the other members of the band.
If I write a song I get 50 cents plus one third of 50 cents which ads up to 66 cents. If I didn’t write the song, I still get 16 1/3 cents. If one song blows up beyond the others, everybody shares and the writer gets the biggest piece.
This also avoids band mates trying to force their two cents into a song in the studio thinking, “if that part gets dropped from the song, I wont get any money.” That’s no way to make a hit record.
Meg from Washington D.C. (cover songs)
Q: Why would the band A-Ha let the band Reel Big Fish denigrate their musical legacy with a cover version of their classic “Take On Me?”
First off Meg, I have to disagree with you on what I think is kind of a kick ass cover version of a song that barely survived Beevis and Butthead calling it “children’s music” but you ask a fair question.
The answer is that A Ha did not have to grant permission at all for Reel Big Fish to cover their song. As soon as a record is distributed with a song on it, the entire world has the right to record a version of that song.
Congress has made it easy to do this to avoid a “monopoly” type situation but some say historically it took on a sinister motive when hit songs by black artists were immediately recorded by squeaky clean white artists sell to families who weren’t down with the brothers.
The compulsory license is over a hundred years old and was created for the player piano scene so it seems that even if it was used in a scandalous way, it’s creation seems to be rather innocent.
How much is a compulsory license?
We’re talking about a compulsory “mechanical license” here really, to mechanically create a copy of someone’s copyrighted work. Right now it’s a bit over 9 cents per song. It used to be only 2 cents.
You can pay the 9 cents per song per release and follow the somewhat complicated notice and monthly payment schemed outlined by the Copyright Office and never ask the publisher for a reduced “bro” rate.
Record labels demand this bro rate from all bands that they sign. Each song a band writes (or non-covers) are referred to as “controlled compositions” and the label usually demands a rate that is ¾ of the “statutory rate” and a “cap” of 10 songs. If the statutory rate is 9 cents, then the label will pay only ¾ of 10 X .09, which is ¾ of 90 cents, or 67 ½ cents. A bro rate from a 3rd party however will probably require an advance based on the amount of records you plan to sell.
Cover songs will be deducted from that amount so if you had 7 cover songs on there that, for which you were depending on the compulsory license, that would have soaked up all your publishing money for the entire record. This is kind of what happened to Sublime so be careful!
And this is usually money that is paid from record one, meaning without recouping any costs associated with recording and supporting the release. It’s often the only money a band ever sees so it does not pay to include a bunch of cover songs on your CD unless your other songs are terrible.
Meg, I know that this is more that you wanted to know but hopefully this answers the questions that the answer to your question kind of begged, in my mind!
Tim from Modesto, CA (Derivative Works)
Q: I am a producer and I sell beats and sh*t. I heard like, if I only use like 5 seconds of a song on my record, like I don’t have to pay any body or get some permission and all that kind a stuff, and I want to apologize for swearing earlier in this conversation.
Thanks Tim, I’m curious though, who told you about this 5 second rule?
Well that was uh, this guy I play dominoes with down at the legion hall and his cousin wrote that tiny kangaroo song that blew up in the 50s and made bank.
You mean “Tie Me Kangaroo Down Sport?”
Yes.
Ya, that must have been some righteous coin. But I am always intrigued as to who comes up with these rules because they are always false. Sing to your self the chorus to the beloved song “Yellow Submarine” by the Beatles and let your watch tick off 5 seconds. That’s the meat of the song. That’s the money! Who’s going to let you get away with that? What kind of a world ruled by apes would this be if that were any kind of law? It would be exactly a world ruled by apes. Let’s remember that the copyright laws exist to reward creativity, they are not a set of loose rules for you try and cheat a song writers out of their deserved income. If you put 5 seconds, or even one second of a recognizable piece of music in your song you have created what is called a “derivative work.”
You can create all the derivative works you want but you cannot exploit them without the owner of the original work’s permission. This is not a compulsory license situation. You need permission from the songwriter and permission from the record label and pay what is commonly referred to as a “sample rate.”
The owner can ask for whatever they want. Asking for more than a full mechanical royalty would be the outside number I would imagine but they can ask for whatever. It’s more economical to just be original and learn how to write your own music.
And I don’t want to pile on but I get a lot of people telling me that they sell beats for a living and I want to just here and now call b.s. on that. No one is selling beats for a living. You mean to tell me some rapper or producer out there can’t even come up with a drumbeat?
I’m saying a couple guys sold some beats to someone some how and now a bunch of kids are running around saying the sell beats. I don’t buy it.
I sell beats.
Where do you work?
I do telemarketing but I sell beats on the side.
OK guy.
Kelly from Los Angeles: (The Fair Use Doctrine)
Q: Hi Joe, you know that song “Do You Think I’m Sexy?” by Rod Stewart? Well I recorded a version of that song and I changed the words and made it into a rather funny song about Al Gore. Do I have to get permission from Rod Stewart to release this on a CD?
Fascinating question because it brings up the wonderful world of the Fair Use Doctrine as it relates to music. This doctrine comes up over and over in music, film, TV, and art but it’s best to understand it first in music.
We all know that normally you need a license, or some kind of permission to use the copyright of another and employ it in a new work that we call a derivative work, but exceptions are made and defended under what is called the Fair Use Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, parody, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, etc.
The Copyright Act sets out the basic guidelines of the doctrine but it doesn’t give hard fast rules, just things to consider when deciding if something can be used without permission to satisfy some greater good than the rights to which some selfish hording rights holder might cling.
A court looking at your Al Gore song might evaluate it according to the 4 guidelines in Section 107 of the act in the following way:
- Purpose or character of use: This new work is not educational, probably is for profit but it is political speech. Political speech is some of the most protected speech we have in this country so we don’t want to stifle it.
- The nature of the original work: This was a song, and you are making a new song, perhaps even a competing song, so that’s bad. But it’s not a serious song, it’s a clear parody that arguable doesn’t compete with a serious love song.
- The amount appropriated: Well you took the whole song? Did you need the whole song to make your point? Probably.
- The effect of the use on the potential market / value of the original work: Here I think you have not harmed the original work and it’s unlikely that people would think Rod Stewart shares your views. They will think it’s just a goof. In fact, it might even enhance the value of the original because when people hear the goof, it may remind them how good the original was and they may buy more copies of it as a result.
Of all these considerations, perhaps the political nature of the derivative work weighs heaviest in your favor to go ahead and release the song. If you get popped for infringement however, this conversation never took place.
Arturo from El Monte: (Weird Al)
Q: Joe, I heard what you said about the Fair Use Doctrine and that guy’s Al Gore song, and I get it. But how does Weird Al Yankovich get away with his parodies? Something like “I Lost Jeopardy” doesn’t serve a greater good. I mean who needs it?
Excellent point Arturo. Song parody’s that aren’t some vital protected speech are generally only considered Fair Use when the lyrics make fun of the song itself. A parody of a song itself requires some use of the song, but you don’t need Madonna’s Like a Virgin to illustrate hilarious scenarios that could occur in a surgical setting.
So Weird Al “gets away with it” by paying. He works out a deal for permission. People like to be honored with one of his covers. If he ever wanted to cover No Doubt’s Oi To The World! Which I wrote, for a Christmas album, I would cut him a sweet deal: ¾ stat; no advance. I’m that kind of guy.
This illustrates an important point not to overlook. Just because you see someone “getting away” with something, it doesn’t mean they didn’t ask for permission and pay. So it’s not a reason for you to think you could get away with something similar.
Greg in New York: (Synchronization License)
Q: Hi Joe, love your show, thanks for doing it. I’ve made a film and we put temporary music in it, now I have to sell it to a distributor so I need music I can actually use. First, is it legal for me to show it to people with the unlicensed music in it and what is the process for legally obtaining music I can use?
Great question Greg; if you asked a music publisher whether you can shop your work around, even internally, with their music in it that you didn’t properly license, that publisher would say no. Even though you are not making any money yet, and not showing to the public, publishers would tell you that you are syncing music to film so you need a synch license.
Of course this is impractical and editors synch temporary music all the time to video in the editing process that is never licensed. People make spec projects every day that they shop around with music in it that they can never afford in hopes of getting to that next step with some financing to maybe afford real music, and maybe even that music.
If you asked a typical music publisher about this practice however they would cry foul. They want their money. After all, you are using their property to try to get money for yourself. Why not cut them in?
Technically they are right but practically it’s a silly notion. I am a music publisher and I encourage producers to use my material in their temp scores and pitches because once a song is in a scene, it’s hard for people to accept a replacement song so often the temp song ends up being in the final product, and of course with a synch license eventually obtained. If you use unlicensed music in your temporary score or sound track, try to limit the damages this causes and you should be fine. Damages can be reduced by not releasing the stuff on public web sites and keeping track of all copies and getting them back after they are viewed. It’s kind of like Fair Use (but not), use only to the extent you need to use.
If you get popped for this however, this conversation never took place. To answer your second question about the process, remember you need two licenses every time you put a song in a film.
The first is the synch license for the underlying copyright of the song. It doesn’t matter who recorded it, you need a license from the person who wrote it or the publishing company who controls or administers it. Sometimes that is the author himself or herself. If it’s a Lionel Richie song, or something substantial like that you are most likely not calling him, you’re calling a major publisher that owns a piece of Richie’s publishing and controls the licensing.
Companies like Warner Bros. EMI, and Sony pay huge advances to own a piece (like 25-50%) of the income a copyrighted song generates, and with this they always demand the administration rights that allow them to say yes or no to licenses and dictate the rates.
They can ask for whatever they want so you are at their mercy. Synch fees go from a few hundred dollars for a small band in a skateboard video to millions to place a Beatles song in a commercial. It’s a free for all. There are no rules; only non-binding quotes as to what someone was paid previously.
Once you’ve nailed down a synch fee for the song, you need to go to the label and secure a “master use license” for the recording you want to use. I consider this secondary because you could always pay to re-record the song with your sister, or even the original artist if you can’t make a deal with the jerk at the label. There’s something called a “re-recording restriction” in each record contract. That is the time period an artist must wait until they can re-record songs off a specific album. Do you think Devo wants some old guys at Warner Brothers to get a chunk of money for a license when they can re-record that song in their own studio and keep that chunk for themselves? The song writer is in the driver’s seat so be nicest to their reps and always know when the re-recording restrictions expire.
Most of the time the synch fee and the master use fee are the same, but not always, and there are no rules. The only rule you need to remember is that you need BOTH of these licenses. Too many times people call me and tell me they got all the rights they need from the label, or all they need from the song writer, and didn’t talk to the other party. That is the quickest way to a costly infringement suit that will cause you to re-cut and re-release your project or be held hostage to one party because they have you over a barrel.
Music clearance issues are pesky and are often the ruin of you and your project so at least remember the basics, you need two licenses per song.
Derek in Indiana: (Performance Royalties)
Q: I’ve heard one of my songs on a network TV show, and I licensed it to them so that’s cool, but I also heard it on Monday Night Football which I didn’t license and isn’t cool. Do I get royalties for any of this?
OK, listen up because here’s where it starts to get complicated. What you are talking about are “performance royalties,” and they come from a “performance rights.” Typically a song writer and publisher sign up their songs with one of three “performance rights societies” and these societies in turn make deals with anyone in the world that might be causing music to be performed.
They make deals with radio stations called “blanket licenses.” And by deals I mean they demand a bunch of money from every radio station in the country and then they pretend they know what’s getting played and they pay the artists for the stations. They make these same kinds of deals with the TV networks, TV stations, stadiums, concert halls, nightclubs, restaurants, and even coffee houses (but not movie theaters, strangely). If Sarah Palin wants to have a big rally in the tundra, she’s probably going to hear from them as well, or she better not play any jams.
One of the interesting things about performance rights societies is that the songwriter and the publisher are two separate accounts. A song writer always gets his or her money, even if they have a deal to share with a publisher.
It would take too long to explain to you how these societies figure out what’s being played out there with their BDS reports and surveys but I think it’s safe to say that is was a terrible system for the entire 20th century, but with new technology it’s getting more exact. I’ve had a number one hit on KROQ before that generated zero income from ASCAP. These days I have crappy little songs all over the place generating tidy sums and I am impressed.
A producer of a film doesn’t have to worry about this stuff. He’s just synching music to video, which only requires a “synch license.” The station or network he licenses his product too is the only one causing the music to be “performed” so they must secure the performance licenses. In turn, they ask the producer to sign something that warrants that they have all their synch licenses in order.
Greg
Could I directly license my work to a network or TV station?
Sure you could. Direct licenses are awesome, but you’d be a freak. Only people that write news themes can deal with that style. Don’t worry your head about it, but it does exist.
To get back to your two part question, when you heard a song on a sporting event, or played by a marching band in a parade, or even on Saturday Night Live, those people aren’t required to get a synch and master use license for every song that happens to be blurted out at a live event like that. Their defense is something in the Copyright Act referred to as the “ephemeral recordings act.”
Basically the same law that allows parades to be broadcast without some ridiculous demand for synch and master use licenses to be obtained first for every song, allows networks and stations to pretty much play any song they want as bumper music or as music “beds” during any live sporting event. Arcade Fire fans were up in arms when No Cars Go was featured in the last Super Bowl. Minor Threat and Dischord Records were more than a little miffed when Salad Days was also used in a similar way during a Fox football broadcast.
This is the same defense asserted by networks who rebroadcast events from candidates like John McCain and David Duke when Brian Adams got all bent out of shape for having his songs played at their events. Their defense was a blanket performance rights license; the networks used the ephemeral recording act.
They call it an “ephemeral use” and it’s not going to change so get used to it and call your rep at your performance rights society and make sure they know it happened so you can get paid something through them. And enjoy those parades.
David from Los Angeles (Festival Licenses)
Q: I made a film and I want to give it away to benefit a non-profit organization. Do I still have to pay for music licenses? What if I just want to enter it into festivals?
Yes, yes, yes. You have to have licenses for free stuff. In fact, I think penalties for infringements that involve stuff given away should be even higher.
The bottom line is that an artist has a right to choose his or her charitable causes. If you burn up the value of one of Porter Waggoner’s songs in a breast cancer documentary, it might not mean as much if it is donated to raise awareness for restless leg syndrome, which could be a pet cause for Porter. It’s his choice, not yours.
KKK recruitment films are usually given away but does that mean the Jimi Hendrix estate should not have a claim, or less of a claim against it’s producers because it was a not for profit cause? When it’s given away the damage can be worse.
With respect to your festival question, most publishers will quote you a reduced rate for limited use in festivals and they call it a “festival license.” It covers only that and it’s good to have because it causes you to clear all your music and have it all organized so when it gets picked up for distribution they will have a better idea of what it will cost to secure broader rights.
What is the film about David?
It’s funny you mentioned it because this actually is a recruitment film for the KKK.
I don’t believe you, but thank you for playing along.
Non Profits
How can I make a non profit company that legally accepts tax deductible donations?
You need to form a legitimate 501c3 corporation. You need a good tax pro to help you with this. In The Public Counsel Law Center offers some great resources on this.
If I want to start a non-profit project do I have to go through the expense of forming a 501 (c) 3 non-profit corporation to let donors get tax deductions?
Not necessarily, there’s something called “Fiscal Sponsorship” where you can align with an existing 501c3 and let your donors get tax deductions. The hippies in San Francisco have this all figured out, check out their info here. There is also a downloadable document about this at the Public Counsel Law Center link above.