Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing? I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
BTW I wouldn't mind non-obtrusive ads (a'la gmail) if it means that the servers are more responsive and the software is more featureful.
Several Mediawiki features are not developed or simply not enabled, because the servers wouldn't be able to handle the load.
-- nyenyec
On 01/01/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing? I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
Non-commercial only images aren't (in theory) permitted anyway... well, certainly not on en:, and I believe it's a general rule.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Ok, let me rephrase my question.
Will these need to be deleted: [[Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images]] or will they be re-tagged as "fair use"?
-- nyenyec
On 1/1/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/01/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing? I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
Non-commercial only images aren't (in theory) permitted anyway... well, certainly not on en:, and I believe it's a general rule.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/1/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Ok, let me rephrase my question.
Will these need to be deleted: [[Category:Non-commercial_use_only_images]] or will they be re-tagged as "fair use"?
They are already to be deleted in the near future.
-- Sam
On Sun, Jan 01, 2006 at 04:17:23PM -0600, Nyenyec N wrote:
Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing? I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
If you run ads, you're engaging in commerce, even if you're a nonprofit.
So yes, running ads and carrying "non-commercial only" content would be a copyright violation. I suspect that it would even be the sort that could invoke statutory damages.
I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer -- is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be "non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.
FF
On 1/1/06, Nyenyec N nyenyec@gmail.com wrote:
Would adopting ads on Wikipedia.org change the situation around image licensing? I'm mostly thinking of non-commercial only images, but I'd also like to know whether it would weaken our fair use arguments.
BTW I wouldn't mind non-obtrusive ads (a'la gmail) if it means that the servers are more responsive and the software is more featureful.
Several Mediawiki features are not developed or simply not enabled, because the servers wouldn't be able to handle the load.
-- nyenyec _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 1/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer -- is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be "non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.
FF
If the WMF just started slapping ads on Wikipedia and generated tens of millions of dollars of revenue they'd be in a precarious situation when tax time rolled around. I'm sure the directors of the foundation would get professional legal advice and possibly an official IRS private letter ruling, before they'd do such a thing.
Of course everything I've read on this topic seems to point to the fact that advertising *is* UBTI, and therefore it *can* jeopardise the foundation's tax-exempt status (the revenue generated from it would have to be disproportionate, such as the millions of dollars a quarter that is being hypothesized). See, for instance, http://www.unclefed.com/ForTaxProfs/irs-regs/2000/20960192.html, which is talking about an exception to the classification for something called "qualified sponsorship payments".
I've started out skeptical about this point, but the more I look at it the more it seems like the only legitimate way for Wikipedia to start advertising like this is for it to create a separate for-profit organization (which could be wholly owned by the foundation). But maybe some genius legal minds can come up with some other loophole, maybe I just completely misread the regulations and rulings, or maybe there were some laws passed recently which overrides what I've been reading.
"I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem." The thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of US non-profit tax laws. Most people don't know what UBTI even is.
Anthony
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
"I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem." The thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of US non-profit tax laws. Most people don't know what UBTI even is.
Why would WMF worry about not being not-for-profit if it were getting all its money from ads? Is there some other benefit apart from being tax-exempt? If the net financial gain would still be an increase in income, the paying tax seems irrelevant.
Or have I missed something crucial? (Note that I am British and take pride in knowing very little of the intricacies of US law.)
-- Sam
On 1/2/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
"I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem." The thing is, I doubt very many people are aware of all the intricacies of US non-profit tax laws. Most people don't know what UBTI even is.
Why would WMF worry about not being not-for-profit if it were getting all its money from ads? Is there some other benefit apart from being tax-exempt? If the net financial gain would still be an increase in income, the paying tax seems irrelevant.
Or have I missed something crucial? (Note that I am British and take pride in knowing very little of the intricacies of US law.)
-- Sam
The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the situation. Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you owe $200 in taxes. You're much better off dissolving the non-profit and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a for-profit :).
Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay taxes and would be owned by the non-profit. That's how the IRS wants you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.
Anthony
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the situation. Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you owe $200 in taxes. You're much better off dissolving the non-profit and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a for-profit :).
That's, um, startling. However, I actually meant the WMF just getting rid of its tax-exempt status.
Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay taxes and would be owned by the non-profit. That's how the IRS wants you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.
Obey the US federal government, I shall.
-- Sam
On 1/2/06, Sam Korn smoddy@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/2/06, Anthony DiPierro wikilegal@inbox.org wrote:
The excise taxes on running a non-profit organization as a for-profit corporation go up to 200% if you don't eventually correct the situation. Yes, 200%, that means if you make $100 in net profits you owe $200 in taxes. You're much better off dissolving the non-profit and forming a for-profit corporation than running a non-profit as a for-profit :).
That's, um, startling. However, I actually meant the WMF just getting rid of its tax-exempt status.
I'm not sure it's possible do that. What would the WMF do with all its assets (domain names and servers being the most valuable ones)? The govt would probably want them to transfer it all to a charity organization. Maybe it's possible to do it retroactively, and just pay penalties and interest on all the previous deductions. Of course then you'd be left with a strange non-profit organization that isn't tax exempt in any way whatsoever. I have to say I have absolutely no idea how that'd work.
This is, of course, ***purely hypothetical speculation***. I don't see any reason the WMF would *want* to lose its tax-exempt status. See the paragraph below...
Of course in reality what would happen far before any of that took place is that the WMF could form a for-profit company which would pay taxes and would be owned by the non-profit. That's how the IRS wants you to do things, in essence it's how they force you to do things.
Obey the US federal government, I shall.
-- Sam
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
On 1/1/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think what you are trying to ask -- and I don't know the answer -- is whether or not a not-for-profit organization in the U.S. would be allowed to generate revenue by hosting advertising. I can't imagine Mediawiki would even consider something which would endanger its not-for-profit status so I doubt this is a problem. It'd still be "non-commercial" in both a legal and ethical sense.
FF
If the WMF just started slapping ads on Wikipedia and generated tens of millions of dollars of revenue they'd be in a precarious situation when tax time rolled around. I'm sure the directors of the foundation would get professional legal advice and possibly an official IRS private letter ruling, before they'd do such a thing.
There are indeed many IRS intricacies relating to the operation of nonprofit societies. I'm sure too that if ads were a realistic considerations we would take all necessary steps to ensure that the status would be protected. A Private Letter Ruling may be a little over the top in what needs to be done.
The debate is over whether to have ads at all. The tax situation is not relevant to that question.
Ec