Ghostwriting is a profession by which a professional writer is paid to write books, articles, stories, reports, or other content which is credited to another person(1). Various celebrities, executives, political figures etc. hire ghostwriters to do the work for them and then they claim the work as their own.

A ghostwriter may be asked to edit and refine a rough draft or he may be asked to create an article from start to finish in which case the employer may give him a couple of points or a basic idea of what he requires. The time period spent by the Ghostwriter on writing the work depends upon the work or a time period set by the employer. The cost of the same would range from between $30,000 to $ 100,000.(2)

Plagiarize means to appropriate (ideas, passages etc) from another work or author.(3) It involves wrongfully appropriating someone else’s ideas, theories, research results, or even words and phrases and presenting them as one’s own.(4) Plagiarism is frowned upon all over the world. This is looked at very closely especially at Universities which require their students to write a dissertation or a thesis for obtaining a passing grade.

Infringement of copyright means any copy including any colourable imitation, made or imported in contravention of the provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957.(5) The question that rises is whether plagiarism would amount to copyright infringement? The same can be answered through an illustration. Suppose an individual borrows a friend’s paper and passes it of as his/her own, it would constitute an academic offence and will have an impact upon his/her academic record. If the same individual has this very same paper published as his own and the original author gives his/her consent to the publication, then it may be a case of plagiarism but it won’t be a case of copyright infringement.(6)

In Universities, when a student is required by the rules of the institution to do a thesis or dissertation by himself, giving the same to Ghostwriters would amount to a contravention of the rules and guidelines laid down for the same. Thus the action of handing in another’s work as the individuals own is illegal in nature and would attract punishment.

To determine if a case of plagiarism amounts to copyright infringement, there exists three conditions. They are as follows:

1) the plagiarized work must be protected by copyright

2) the author has not given authorisation for the usage of his work

3) false attribution of authorship(7)

By plagiarizing, an individual is in a way stealing the hard work put in by another to be his own. The basic idea of Intellectual Property Rights protection is to reward the individual who has put in his skill and labour into the creation of the work. Attribution of the same by another person is unacceptable.

Ghost writing on the other hand is a method by which both parties are satisfied by the arrangement they draw up. If we look at it closely we see that the Ghostwriter knows beforehand that his work will be turned over to the individual who employs him, to be used in a manner which the employer wants. The Ghostwriter is given a very high remuneration for the same. The remuneration is the reward for his work. The Ghostwriter is aware of the same and is happy to hand over his work for the remuneration. There is no plagiarism in the same because there is no wrongful appropriation of the Ghostwriters work. He willfully turns over the work and gives up all rights in it for a due consideration.

The question is then whether copyright protection should be provided for the work. As the Ghostwriter is the original creator of the work, in whom should the copyright subsist? The question is answered by the fact that the Ghostwriter agrees to turn over all rights of the created work to the individual who employs him. He is given a good remuneration as his reward for the same. Thus it can safely be said that the copyright vests in the employer rather than the Ghostwriter.

The concept of Ghostwriting is on a steady increase. It is not something which is ethical in nature but in contemporary times, it is one which is very much in existence.

There is another issue in ghost Writing- the question is:

Would Ghost Writing amount to passing off?

To illustrate, when a fan of Jeffery Archer buys a book where the author is shown to be Jeffery Archer he expects to purchase a novel written by Jeffery Archer. If the novel is written by someone else then is the reader not deceived into buying a book which he believes to be authored by Jeffery Archer. Its obvious that is this day & age publishers would like to publish as many books in the name of a “Best Selling” author & therefore Ghost Writing becomes economically expedient when the author himself is not able to churn out en ough books.

1 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

2 publishersweekly.com/article/CA6338637.html

3 Collins English Dictionary

4 Michael Glick, Plagiarism, salami, ghostwriting and other forms of flattery; jada.ada.org

5 Sec. 35 of THE Indian Copyright Act,

6 Francisco, Javier Cabera Blazquez, Plagiarism: an Original Sin

7 Supra at fn. 6



By: Mike Smith

About the Author:

Get a Mortgage

Copyright Violation

Copyright is important to any writer.  It’s a statement of ownership of property.  And despite opinions to the contrary, writing is no less property than say a house or car.  Yet, why do some people view such property as fair game for stealing? The very selfsame people who wouldn’t think of stealing even a penny from anyone else, are quite happy and at ease with stealing writing.

One of the main reasons that writing is stolen online is that the internet is viewed as being “free”, and, therefore, anything on it is “free” too - despite copyright notices being highly visible on websites.

Pure laziness maybe a cause.  It’s much easier to do a quick internet search for the article of your choice, put your name on it and use it.   Quality web content is often at a premium and web owners’ may just grab a writer’s work just to fill out their website.  It’s much easier to lift website content than create your own.

Jealousy may prove to be another reason. A writer who feels inferior to a fellow writer’s talent may just steal an article and pass it off as his/her own, and with no regard whatsoever to copyright law.

But whatever the reason, it’s wrong and it’s illegal.



How To Deal With Content Theft

Identify the Source -

If your property has been stolen, the first step is to track down the source of the theft. But please remember that the person who originally stole the content may have had the content stolen from them too.  They may even have had the content linked to. Your best course of action is to eliminate the linked websites.  This should leave you with the website(s) that are actually displaying your content as their own.

What next?

You should contact the website owners and tell them that you are the writer of the content.  Try not to go in with all guns blazing, as it will probably only antagonise and end any hope of worthwhile communication.  

You tell the website owner that your copyright is being breached. Then you offer the chance to remove the content, or acknowledge you as the copyright owner.



Gather Information and Evidence

You should always keep copies of any communications that you have had with the web owner.  This could later prove to be valuable evidence if the matter goes to court. 

Now, the web owner may not believe that you are the copyright owner, in which case you may have to provide evidence.  This is relatively simple.  

1 - If you compiled your content in MS Word, all the content and files will be dated.  

2- A  Google search can let you screen capture your website results, which will show the original cache file.  It will provide a date. Print out a copy, making sure the date is seen.

3 - You may have invited family and friends to visit your website when it first appeared online.  Ask them to be witnesses and have them verify the original publishing date to the internet.

All of the above may be faced with a counter claim. So, be aware that even if you have all evidence that you need, it may still not all be plain sailing, especially if the web owner is a genuine content thief. The thief will be set on obstructing you as much as possible.



Cease And Desist Order

Now, if the website owner has refused to remove the content or hasn’t even replied, it’s time to put pressure on.  

You now send a cease and desist order to everyone involved. This means the website owners, their hosting provider and their advertisers.  Don’t contact the advertisers until the last minute though. You should offer 24-48 hours for a response. The cease and desist order is simply, “Stop or else.”  There are templates online that you can use.  

If even the cease and desist doesn’t work, then you ask their hosting provider to temporarily suspend the website until the copyright issue is resolved. If the hosting provider doesn’t respond, then next are the advertisers. Good, reputable advertisers don’t wish their reputation to be sullied in the marketplace.  It’s not in their best interests to have their advertisments placed alongside illegally obtained material. It may enough for them to pull their advertisements, thereby hurting the thief where it hurts the most.

And if that didn’t work, you now call in the search engines.  You write to them and tell them of the copyright theft.  You may want to send a small amount of the correspondence you shared with the thief, and a dated document to prove your copyright ownership.

You can request a ban from the search engines under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.  The European Union equivalent is the EU Copyright Directive/EUCD.  The ban should lead to a significant reduction of traffic into the offending website.

If this not enough, then your next action is to visit a lawyer who specialises in copyright law.  It may prove to be costly though. Most people would be content with the above actions, so consider well before you open yourself to such legal expense.

Why not visit Buzzed Up?



By: Emily Banks

About the Author:

Morning Sickness

There he is - the young art student - in the corner, sporting a slouch, worn blue jeans and a faded ironic t-shirt, standing in front of the canvases he submitted for this month’s class show; large, blue, sci-fi landscapes, which, from a distance, are beautiful. They look like heavenly, undulating space-scapes of sky and stars.

But move five steps closer, and the illusion fades. He is in the corner, yes, but the slouch is affected — he’d be more comfortable standing straight. His worn blue jeans? Brand new, but distressed. His ironic t-shirt? That once most noble badge of indie creed? It’s been on sale at the Urban Outfitters down the street for a month. And the paintings – the paintings! Up-close, they show themselves as crude copies of those prints featured in the discounted Salvador Dali calendars sold at Barnes and Noble: forced line, muddy colors, uninteresting ideas.

What’s offensive is not the young student’s pose, for at least he is trying to do something with his image. And the paintings, while bad, are not so bad that his art school scholarship would be threatened. No, what’s most worrisome is that he doesn’t know he’s posing, doesn’t know that the elements he’s so carefully cultivated as “his own,” are not. He’s exuding “originality” in the most culturally acceptable way, possibly the only way he knows: he buys it.

Those shelves of products that our young hero peruses in his off-time– all copyrighted, patented, or otherwise “pre-approved” for consumption - give him the feeling that he has freedom of choice, while, in fact, his freedoms are limited. “Have a problem? Use this face cream. Buy a car. Wear these blue jeans.”

These are his only options. We should feel pity for him – after all, he’s lived in Pasadena his whole life, he doesn’t know. This is what he thinks is edgy. Because he has taste, he makes do with what he has. But because he is young, he is a bit too proud. More seasoned personalities whisper to each other: His shirt, the off-white one? With the cartoon of a red-bearded lad, holding close his seven bottles of bear, stating, “Irish 7-Course Meal?” Done. His blue jeans? 700 dollars, faded in all the right places, do not connote the roughshod life. Oh no, they scream, “Mom buys my clothes!” And the Art. Oh God, the Art.

What can save our young hero, apart from extended sit-down sessions with Roland Barthes or concentrated perusals of Frederick Jamison (both of which are, for the most part, impossible to comprehend at such an age)? What can pull away the cowl of ignorance, freeing the young artist from that most hated of appropriations – derivative? Ready? Here comes the answer – and it’s not drugs, religious experiences, or world travel. The answer is that he must study and learn the copyright laws of United States.

And in order to learn the copyright laws of the United States, he must first know what a copyright is. Here are the simple definitions, according to onelook.com:

# noun: a document granting exclusive right to publish and sell literary or musical or artistic work

# verb: secure a copyright on a written work

Why is a knowledge of the legal precedence of copyright important to a young artist? Because in order to create, a good artist should know as much as possible about his tools. This means not just the origins of his fine bristle brush, or the interesting history of the chemistry of his pigments, but to examine the social and political tools that will allow him to function as an artist in the United States in 2007.

Thus, while copyright law is not as glamourous as brushes or paint, it is nonetheless as important. For within copyright law lies the secret of what to do after. And what do American’s do after they’re done? They sell. They horde. And, in turn, they covet, they hide… While squirreling away money is a good idea, hiding creative output is not. Keeping the creative hidden leads to problems such as our hero’s - too much confidence in too much little. Our hero’s problems stem from this ignorance - for, despite his fancy education, he is creatively ignorant - too many things have been kept from his eyes.

But wait! you say. Surely it is his responsibility to educate himself! There are libraries, public exhibitions, and teachers.

Of course, these are necessary elements in any person’s education. But our hero cannot personally own a library book, an outdoor concerts, or the mind of a great teacher, and the relative unavailability of ownership of fine works of art encourages a lazy attitude towards authenticity. Within copyright law, too, lies a history of the role of the Artist within American Society, a role our hero has wanted to play, desperately, for many years. Is it not also his responsibility to know his legal rights? Sadly, our hero does not know about the Berne Convention, held in Switzerland, in 1886. Led by that most diligent, most empathetic of writers, Victor Hugo. He does not know of Hugo’s obsession with la droit d’auteur. He does not know most of his European and Asian contemporaries not only consider intellectual property more important than money, but that the status of the artist is more socially powerful than that of entrepreneur. He does not know that Europe and Asia have historically made political concessions to facilitate their artists’ creativity. Or that the United States didn’t join the Berne Convention until nearly one hundred years after its inception – on March 1, 1989.

Here is something else he doesn’t know: copyright laws in the United States, had, until 1989, been focused on keeping intellectual property private in order to facilitate economic growth. In other words, in the US, copyright law has historically been a monetary issue, not a creative one…Thus the shelves of products posing as freedom as choice.

And here is something else: thanks to the acceptance of the Berne Convention, which decrees that work belongs to its creator as soon as it’s created, without having to fill out government forms, the tide is turning.

And finally, another fact: the most notable example of progressive copyright translation in the United States is the group called Creative Commons. Creative Commons gives artists the information and encouragement needed to not squirrel their work away, in fear that someone might steal their ideas, but rather, to share and remix their work with the work of others.

And now, for a theoretical leap: This is a necessary step on the incline from being derivative to being truly POSTMODERN. (Ugh, but why postmodern? Isn’t that old hat? AU CONTRAIRE).

The hallmark of postmodernism is the desire to combine. And we are at a point in cultural history where the only thing left to do is combine. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Marcel Proust, that most beloved of all neurotic writers, stated as a child that he did could not name a single color as his favorite, but rather, he found the most pleasure in their combinations. And all postmodern art is a hybrid – a little of this, a little of that – which in turn encourages the creation of the global ego – an ego much less offensive than the ego present in our young hero at the start of this article.

Some say the start of the Enlightenment was thanks to the creation of factory-produced mirrors, which allowed even the most plebeian life form to see themselves as individuals. But today, we don’t look to the mirror for accurate reflections. Instead, we gaze into the computer monitor. Our thoughts, words, and images, regardless of original source, create a collective brain, one that can be harnessed most powerfully through an artist’s understanding of copyright. And even science is beginning to consider human beings in a similar way - the millions of individuals that populate the Earth are really a single, throbbing organism, a human membrane, if you will, that covers our planet, hovering, blue and bulbous, like a helium balloon bobbing about in the milky way.

Which takes us back to our hero’s work. Remember? Those great blue swathes of sky and stars that looked so good from a distance? Does he know about Turner? And if he did, would not his unpleasant ego dissolve, leaving him – his ideas and his work – behind to do the talking. And would not his art - our art - be improved?



By: Lainie Liberti

About the Author:

Spa Resorts