Also known as: non-profit corporation · nonprofit corporations · non-profit corporations · nonprofit · non-profit organization
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A corporation organized for charitable, educational, religious, or other public purposes rather than for the financial gain of its members or directors. Its assets must be dedicated to those purposes and may not be distributed as profits. Formation and governance follow state nonprofit corporation statutes that limit permissible activities and require compliance with tax-exemption rules when applicable.
Nancy Nelson, an attorney, represents an indigent client through Nightingale Healthcare, a nonprofit legal services organization. After retention Nancy provides modest funds for the client's rent and medicine without promising the gifts in advance or seeking repayment. The arrangement complies with professional conduct rules because the client receives the support through the nonprofit entity.
Nordic Ventures, a nonprofit advocacy group, mails letters informing individuals of civil rights and offering free representation. State officials attempt to ban the mailings as improper solicitation. The letters receive First Amendment protection because Nordic Ventures pursues political objectives rather than commercial gain.
Nalini Narula, a sculptor, creates a work for Community for Creative Non-Violence, a nonprofit association dedicated to homelessness issues. The association claims copyright ownership as the hiring party. The court determines that Nalini is an independent contractor, so the nonprofit does not automatically own the copyright under work-made-for-hire doctrine.
In the fall of 1985, petitioners Community for Creative Non-Violence and Mitch Snyder conceived the idea for a sculpture depicting a contemporary Nativity scene featuring homeless people to dramatize their plight during the annual Christmastime Pageant of Peace in Washington, D.C. Snyder contacted respondent James Earl Reid, a sculptor, and in two telephone calls the parties agreed that Reid would produce the three life-sized human figures while CCNV would build the steam grate and pedestal. They selected Design Cast 62 as the material, capped the project cost at $15,000 excluding Reid's donated services, set a December 12 deadline, and reached no written agreement while never discussing copyright. After Reid received an advance of $3,000, he made several sketches of figures in different poses. At Snyder’s request, Reid sent CCNV a sketch of a proposed sculpture showing the family in a crechelike setting: the mother seated, cradling a baby in her lap; the father standing behind her, bending over her shoulder to touch the baby’s foot. Reid sought a black family to serve as a model for the sculpture. Upon Snyder’s suggestion, Reid visited a family living at CCNV’s Washington shelter but decided that only their newly born child was a suitable model. While Reid was in Washington, Snyder took him to see homeless people living on the streets. Snyder pointed out that they tended to recline on steam grates, rather than sit or stand, to warm their bodies. From that time on, Reid’s sketches contained only reclining figures. From November through mid-December 1985, Reid worked on the statue in his Baltimore studio with assistance from people paid by CCNV installments, and CCNV members visited to check progress and directed the inclusion of a shopping cart for the figures' belongings. On December 24, 1985, 12 days after the agreed-upon date, Reid delivered the completed statue to Washington. Snyder paid Reid the final installment of the $15,000. The statue remained on display for a month. In late January 1986, CCNV members returned it to Reid's studio in Baltimore for minor repairs. In March 1986, after Snyder requested the sculpture's return, Reid refused, registered a copyright in his name, and planned a tour. Snyder filed a competing registration as CCNV trustee. CCNV and Snyder then sued Reid seeking return of the sculpture and a determination of copyright ownership. Following a two-day bench trial the district court held the sculpture was a work made for hire owned by CCNV, but the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded on the possibility of joint authorship, prompting the Supreme Court to grant certiorari.
View caseNoah Nakamura forms a nonprofit to promote Asian-American musicians and seeks to register a band name containing a racial slur. The USPTO refuses registration on disparagement grounds. The nonprofit prevails because the First Amendment bars viewpoint-based denial of trademark registration.
Simon Tam serves as the lead singer of the rock group The Slants, whose members are Asian-Americans. He chose the name in an effort to reclaim the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory reference to Asian persons. The group has incorporated childhood slurs into its lyrics and titled albums including The Yellow Album and Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts. Tam filed an application with the Patent and Trademark Office seeking registration of THE SLANTS as a trademark. The PTO examining attorney rejected the application after applying a two-part analysis and concluding that a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent would find the mark offensive. The attorney cited dictionary definitions labeling the term as derogatory and evidence that the band's name had prompted cancellation of a performance along with negative comments from online readers. Tam appealed the denial first to the examining attorney and then to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which upheld the refusal. Tam then brought the case before the Federal Circuit. Sitting en banc, that court reversed the Board. The Government petitioned for certiorari, and the Supreme Court granted review.
View caseNoreen Nguyen, director of a nonprofit film archive, challenges a statute extending copyright terms for existing works. The archive holds many public-domain films that would otherwise enter the collection sooner. The Court upholds the extension because Congress acted within its constitutional authority over intellectual property.
In 1998 Congress enacted the Copyright Term Extension Act, which extended the duration of all federal copyrights by twenty years. For works created by identified natural persons the new term runs from creation until seventy years after the author's death. For anonymous works, pseudonymous works, and works made for hire the term is ninety-five years from publication or one hundred twenty years from creation, whichever expires first. The statute applied these extended terms both to copyrights already in existence and to works created after its effective date. Petitioners are individuals and businesses whose products or services build on copyrighted works that have gone into the public domain. They filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a declaration that the extension of existing copyrights exceeded Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and violated the First Amendment. On cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings the district court entered judgment for the Attorney General. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed. A majority of the panel upheld the statute against both challenges, while Judge Sentelle dissented in part on the Copyright Clause issue. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address whether the extension of existing copyrights exceeds Congress's power under the Copyright Clause and whether the extension violates the First Amendment.
View caseNavarro Industries, a nonprofit community group, posts directional signs for its events. The town enforces a sign code that treats the signs differently based on their message. The nonprofit obtains an injunction because the code imposes content-based restrictions that fail strict scrutiny.
The Town of Gilbert, Arizona, maintains a comprehensive Sign Code that categorizes outdoor signs by the type of information they convey and imposes different restrictions on each category. Ideological signs communicating messages or ideas for noncommercial purposes may be up to 20 square feet and displayed without time limits. Political signs designed to influence elections may be up to 32 square feet and displayed up to 60 days before a primary and 15 days after a general election. Temporary directional signs relating to qualifying events, such as meetings of nonprofit groups, are limited to 6 square feet, may be displayed no more than 12 hours before and 1 hour after the event, and are restricted in placement. Petitioners Good News Community Church and its pastor Clyde Reed are small nondenominational churches that hold services at various temporary locations in the Town. To advertise their services, the Church posts 15 to 20 temporary signs around the Town early on Saturday mornings displaying the Church name and the time and location of the next service, removing them around midday on Sunday. The Town's Sign Code compliance manager cited the Church twice for violating the time limits on temporary directional signs and for failing to include an event date on the signs. Town officials confiscated one sign, which Reed retrieved from municipal offices. Reed contacted the compliance department to reach an accommodation, but the manager informed the Church there would be no leniency and promised to punish future violations. The Churches filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging the Sign Code violated the First Amendment, and sought a preliminary injunction. The District Court denied the motion. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, concluding the Sign Code was content neutral. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseNo. Bylaws must remain consistent with the articles, which function as the higher governing document. An amendment that reassigns director removal power from members to the board is invalid when the articles expressly reserve that power to members.
Supporting sources
…the scope of the CDA is not limited to commercial speech or commercial entities. Its open-ended prohibitions embrace all nonprofit entities and individuals posting indecent messages or displaying them on their own computers in the presence of minors. The general, undefined terms "indecent" and "patently offensive"…