What organizations do you donate to?

To further evaluate the idea of offering membership options that include donations to nature conservation organizations, I would like to establish a list of which organizations you donate to, our would donate to. So please feel free to post those organizations you feel are worthy.

As a side note, if this membership option is put into effect, it would in no way be allowed to diminish the "non-political" atmosphere of NPN that so many of our members have come to appreciate. It would simply be a "quiet way" for you to support those causes/organizations you feel are worthy. With that in mind, please do not post any criticism of organizations suggested.

Once I have a list based on your suggestions, I will determine which ones could work with the "mechanics of donation" that will be used with the program we are evaluating.

Thanks!

Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance
Best Friends Animal Society
Defenders of Wildlife

Guy

Thanks Guy!

The Nature Conservancy
Florida Wildlife Federation
Alabama Wildlife Federation
Several small localized groups

American Birding Association
Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
The Nature Conservancy - National
The Nature Conservancy - California
The Nature Conservancy - Idaho
Audubon California

Salvation Army--They do excellent work and I know most of the money goes directly to helping people instead of to overhead.

Ducks Unlimited--Easily the largest and most effective conservation organization in North America.

Habitat for Humanity--Excellent work and I love their philosophy of people taking responsibility for their own lives.

Various church run food/emergency shelter locations--they do excellent work helping people.

Red Cross--for major disasters.

Various railroad museum/historical associations--small donations to preserve local history.

---------------------------------------------------

I suppose what I'm looking for when I donate is a reasonable likelihood my money will be used well, especially if it is used to help others.

Kent in SD

I suppose what I'm looking for when I donate is a reasonable likelihood my money will be used well, especially if it is used to help others.

Good advice, regardless of your political beliefs.

FWIW, I too had thought of "humanitarian" organizations like Habitat for Humanity, but think that as a nature site we should stick with nature/wildlife conservation organizations.

For wildlife/nature oriented organizations, I look at three things I suppose. One is what do they do with the money? Do they use it responsibly? Do they get results? ( I tend to prefer groups that actually do work in the field rather than spend it on political lobbyists.) The second thing I look at is if they have any activity in my local area. The third and final factor is how the group's overall philosphies mesh with my own. For me, I find Ducks Unlimited and also Nature Conservancy are a far better "fit" with my own thinking than is Greenpeace and Sierra Club, as an example. I see DU projects everywhere in my region, and there are some great nearby NC areas they've purchased too. I also like these two groups because they tend to work WITH the local people locally. There seems to be some national organizations that appear to not want to work with local people, and those I avoid. My personal POV, of course.


Kent in SD

I've donated to Ducks Unlimited for some time. Perhaps thought of as a hunting oriented organization, they've done alot for migratory waterfowl.

Also consider TNC a top notch organization.

I have for a few years donated to the Peregrine Fund. They do good conservation work imo, especially on projects such as Calif.Condor, Aplomado Falcons, Harpy Eagles, Orange Breasted Falcons, etc. They don't just reintroduce birds but also put a lot of work into educating the public about raptors (especially in Panama, Belize, Dom.Rep.)

What's the value of NPN playing middleman? Having NPN promote appropriate groups seems like a good idea. Adding yet another layer between the end user of the funds and the giver does not seem necessary.

Don, an important aspect I forgot to mention is that NPN would add to each contribution as well. For example, a $49 membership would include $10 from the member and $5 from NPN, making the total contribution $15. Though we have yet to work out the actual numbers, this is how it would work.

I've donated to the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Goodwill and volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. I was a Sierra Club member, but have been delinquent in renewing.

World Wildlife Federation here and a RSBP member here in the UK.

william

- - - What exactly are you donating anyway? - - - - Money?
Considering the new money situation at NPN, I would say that instead of giving money from the expense account, - -
how about setting up a small seperate portfolio section just for images that people are willing to give free use to charity groups, and then promoting that section to each charity you can find. - - - a free image is worth 10 times as much as a few dollar donation.. It would also be a great promo thing for the site. Give people a chance for publication, and some of their own promo benifits.

I think Paul has a great idea.


Kent in SD

- - - Actually I just changed my idea.

Creating a new section would be a LOT of extra work.
INSTEAD,,, if there was just a new "pick box" in the portfolio post form
which would afford the poster the option to say that
"this image is also available for free publication use to all NPN approved charitys."
That notice should also appear next to the thumbnail along with the category and view count.
That way any charity visiting a portfolio can see right away which ones are available,
and which ones aren't. That could also be a main search in the keywords, ie "charity"

It should be a lot less work setting that up than a whole new portfolio section.

Ducks Unlimited
Nature Conservancy
Cornell Lab of Ornithology
Canine Health Foundation
Oxfam

Paul, that does make it much easier. I think by adding the word "charity" to the keywords would make the photo searchable for that phrase.

Actually I personally would not allow my images to be used generically for any "NPN Approved Charity". I would much rather be able to select specific organizations.

Guy

Hey folks

I would really dislike the idea of promoting free images for charities. I already get far more requests than I'd like for 'free' images. Everyone thinks they're some kind of charity, and hsa some claim to virtue to support it. Advertising sites such as this one or photoportfolios.net simply furthers the idea that images on the web are public domain. It's really hard to get folks to understand that this isn't the case, and will be even harder if they start seeing nature photography websites and communities like this advertising and promoting free usage.

Cheers

Carl

Well said Carl. I could stay busy full-time responding to the charitable requests I get now – and most are really good causes. It seems the few times I have donated images; they end up all over the place as if they are in public domain. It usually turns into more work they purchased photos.

I prefer to choose my charities and donate cash. As we explain to the requesters, unlike photos, cash is tax deductible, and cash donations don’t devalue our images or the industry.

Although it may appear that way, I wasn’t trying to be antagonistic. Paul’s response to Carl wasn’t there when I wrote mine.

hey Paul

I was aware the post said NPN approved charities. My point was simply that it's already time consuming for me to explain to people that I can't afford to give away images to each and every person who feels they have a virtuous reason for me to do so. I should post a list of the names I've been called for not doing so. If they start seeing sites and communities like this with images posted that are promoted as being freely available to 'charities' they'll be even more resistant to the idea that I or yu or everybody else shouldn't give work away for free - in their eyes, their charity is just as valid and important as every one else's.

I think it's very different to list a number of groups or organizations as NPN-favored charities than to have a thumbnail with a notation claiming that images are available for free to approved charities.

I guess I fail to see the point of this idea .. what is gained by having images available for free to charities on NPN?

Cheers

Carl

If the object is to help support certain charities by donating images, what if NPN tried to find/develop a contact with the charities and then provide them with a virtual "catalog" of images that members are willing to donate? It seems like that would be more efficient because it would connect someone at the charity directly with available images rather than just hoping that they happen to surf to one, and would also address the issue of people being concerned about images in the portfolios being marked "free", members would be able to choose which charities would see their image, etc.. Finding a contact person might be hard work, but perhaps the members who suggest a group would be willing to help do that. Just a random thought I had while reading this thread.

It seems to me we have gotten off topic. The question posed by Jim was what organizations we contribute $$ to. The discussion of whether to expand the option of donating image use, to me, seems like another thread topic. If NPN were to enhance our monetary contribution the organization would benefit a lot.

Nature related organizations I contribute to:
WWF
National Wildlife Foundation
Sun Coast Bird Sanctuary

some local contributions
Tanglewood Nature Center
Fingerlakes Land Trust

If NPN were to enhance our monetary contribution the organization would benefit a lot.

That is indeed the plan! Otherwise, as Don stated, it wouldn't make much sense.

The creator of a photo can not deduct the fair market value of its use. That is not wrong, this is absolutely correct. You can deduct your direct costs. In other words, you can deduct the cost of making the dup, or the cost of the CD, but not the fair market value of the image. This is also true for donated prints. You can deduct the cost of the ink and paper, not the market value of the print.

Congress looked at changing this a few years ago, but that legislation never went anywhere.

I would really like to get this one back on track on which organizations you donate (or would donate) to, not how you donate.

Much obliged!

You may HAVE done it, but it wasn’t legal. The law hasn’t changed, it has always been that way and it is different then donating a car (unless of course you are the maker of the car in which case you can only deduct your actual costs). If you are a professional photographer, you probably already expensed your direct costs, so you really can’t deduct any part of the donation.

The IRS feels that since you never recognized the creation of the product as income, and thus paid income tax, that you can’t then turn around and also deduct this created value as an expense.

I think if this deduction was ever was allowed, we would see a flood of “very valuable” donated art. :)

Sorry Jim, I just thought it was worth clarifying.

I donate the most cash to the Nature Conservancy. The other environmental/conservation charities that get my money are the Maine, Massachusetts and National Audubon Society, the Cornell Ornithology Lab and Rails-to-Trails.

Sorry Jim, I just thought it was worth clarifying.

Ron, no problem! My comment was not directed at anyone in particular. I know how easy it is for topics we feel passionate about to wander off course.

my donations line up with my interests in nature in Holland:
Dutch birdlifeprotection and Naturemonuments