I would never buy custom essay from sites that sell pre-written papers!!!

WB, i think Frosticles refers the US as 'you'.
Just my opinion. Not planning on starting a pro/con US argument

Ahhhhhhhh, I see.

Isn't it ironic how America-haters love all of the opportunities that America affords them?

I assume you speak of America-haters who write for US companies, no?
I am not a writer. Plus dont actually hate the country.

As you pointed out, it's Frosticles who has the problem with America.

In all fairness, "Frosticles" (that makes me chuckle) appears to have a problem with the whole industry. Posting things like "the industry doesn't pay writers" and it includes "too much frustration" while claiming to no longer be writer and still frequently the board seems a bit off, frankly. Seriously Frostat, if you aren't a writer any more, you have no reason to still be randomly posting on this board.

i agree with you

Propel is right, I have the same experienced too unfortunately we are not allowed to say the website too bad, I order a custom essay for 219 dollars the work is good I dont have any issue on that, t :(They delivered what I ordered, However this custom essay I ordered was owned by the company:(

I did asked about it ,their reason are:
"We keep ownership for two reasons: 1) you can't turn in something that you don't own and 2) yes, we might resell the document in the future. You paid for the research and writing, but we keep the ownership. "

I dont I have any worries on this because definitely I will do my own writing, I just use it as my guideliness, .
Anyway Not all custom essay are the same, I also ordered from other company and I am happy because the custom essay I ordered from them is really mine, but of course I will do my own writings :).

As a client I choose to order custom essay that will give you ownership or if not because thats really belongs to the writer at least not do the reselling :)

ALL essay companies based in the US/UK retain ownership of the essays they produce, otherwise they would be in violation of the law. Those who operate in other countries and are generally free from legal responsibilities of this nature are also likely to resell the papers, even if they say that the customer has ownership.

You are, of course, free to order from any company that makes you happy. The copyright issue is one way to determine if you're ordering from a legitimate US/UK site or not, though.

Could you specify what law you're referring to?

I've posted links to example laws several times.

Virtually every state has a law(s) that specifically forbids the transfer of copyright of academic materials to a customer. Any US-based site that willingly breaks those laws is subject to a fine of at least $200 per violation, per transaction (the monetary penalty varies from state to state). Any state in which the site does business-which, for an online company, is every state-can also file a lawsuit for injunctive relief (i.e., a permanent ban against the site, including removal from all search engines).

$200 (minimum) x number of sales per month = total fine per month

NOTE: The prosecutor and judge will determine the "likely" number of sales per month.

All it takes is for someone with the legal knowledge and resources to bring the matter to the attention of the offices of attorneys general.

Could you post any link? I've been looking but couldn't find anything that states that 'it is prohibited to transfer copyrights to a model academic research' or similar..

Falsely advertising to customers that they will own the copyright-and therefore be able to submit the work for academic credit-is unlawful.

The only reason why the owner of any essay site would advertise copyright transfer is to make the "service" more attractive to customers who plan to commit academic fraud. Courts fully understand this fact, and take appropriate action when presented with evidence of violations. Sufficient evidence includes the mere advertisement of "you will own full or partial copyright."

Ok, so you posted a bunch of links and I only found one mention regarding copyright transfer (in NY state):

law.justia.com/newyork/codes/education/edn0213-b_213-b.html

Is there anything else that refers to the statement that it's illegal to transfer copyrights to a model academic research?

All it takes is one attorney general from one state to file a lawsuit on behalf of the state and/or an injunction.

Every law that I quoted forbids the provision of "research" materials for academic credit. Obviously, the fact the some of the laws do not specifically mention the word "copyright" is irrelevant. Good luck to any essay site owner who tries to use that as a defense.

So in other words, currently there is NO LAW that prohibits a transfer of a model academic work to another person.

How can you come to that conclusion when you already acknowledged that at least one of the laws specifically forbids-in the text of the law itself-copyright transfer?


Using "copyright transfer" as a marketing tactic is an unlawful practice, as it outwardly communicates to prospective customers that the research material is their property that they can turn in for academic credit. If you don't believe me, I highly suggest that you study the Boston University lawsuit of 1997.

"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
-Edmund Burke

The gist of nearly every state law is most accurately reflected in the law of California (a precedent-setting state):

"No person shall prepare, offer to prepare, cause to be prepared, sell, or otherwise distribute any term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material for another person, for a fee or other compensation, with the knowledge, or under circumstances in which he should reasonably have known, that such term paper, thesis, dissertation, or other written material is to be submitted by any other person for academic credit at any public or private college, university, or other institution of higher learning in this state."

It is established, legal precedent that offering to transfer copyright/ownership breaks the "should reasonably have known" threshold.

So that may suggest it is illegal to write and sell papers for compensation. And out of the two companies (Company TRANSFER - one that transfers copyrights) versus (Company NON-TRANSFER - one that does not transfer copyrights) the company that does transfer copyrights causes 'less harm.'

Here is why:

Imagine you are a bar club owner. A person who doesn't look 21 tells the owner (who is a bartender at the same time): "I'd like to have a beer, please." Both the "Company TRANSFER" and the "Company NON-TRANSFER" owners don't ask for ID because they want to think the person has a legal age to drink a beer. The "Company TRANSFER" owner just sells the beer and takes the money. The "Company NON-TRANSFER" owner sells the beer, takes the money, but before he hands the beer to the customer he peels off the "excise label" so that when a policeman comes he could have an excuse that the beer wasn't sold at his place. At the same time, he could legally sell extra beer that was gathered off other clients' half-empty bottles again to other customers because he would re-use the 'legal' labels that he 'saved' on the 'almost-legal' customers.

The act of peeling off the excise label (ie. the act of selling a model *custom* essay without copyright transfer) suggests that the seller is informed or has reason to believe the product he sells is intended for illegal usage. Otherwise, why would he peel off the label?

Of course, the "Company NON-TRANSFER" makes double money on selling beer to suspicious clients and re-using the labels, but - in my opinion - they also risk double charges for possible illegal activities.

Major, quite frankly, neither one of our "opinions" or analogies matters. I could communicate to you what I "think," but that would be meaningless. I am outlining the facts concerning existing, legal precedent.

Again, please study the Boston University case. The fact is that BU ultimately lost the lawsuit based on a mere technicality (i.e., the judge ruled that BU did not have sufficient standing to file the lawsuit in the first place). However, the judge made it quite clear that if BU had had sufficient standing, it would have WON on the merits because-at the time of the lawsuit-the defendant essay companies did NOT take proper steps to openly communicate to prospective customers that the papers are strictly the company's property and are for research/reference purposes only. If not for that technicality, the very existence of an essay site would be flat-out illegal today. THAT is why the essay companies that were party to the lawsuit and are still in business today-The Paper Store Enterprises and Research Assistance-began displaying such strict, airtight disclaimers and openly forbidding copyright transfer immediately after the lawsuit ended. All other American companies that had a desire to stay in business adopted the same policies. It is only the new companies, whose owners do not know any better, that dangerously use "copyright transfer" as a marketing tactic. Once those owners are faced with having to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on attorneys fees just for the chance to emerge victorious (highly unlikely) and stay in business, they will change their policies quite quickly.

By the way, Boston University (BU) filed the federal lawsuit against eight essay companies in seven different states. All but three of the companies went out of business because they couldn't afford any more legal fees.

Then why some companies use a dangerous marketing tactic of 'a courtesy waiting period' that allows their clients to legally submit the paper as their own (without them appearing in search engines or other online databases)? Doesn't it tell the clients 'don't worry, we won't publish/re-sell your paper for at least X months just because that should be enough time for you to earn a credit'?

That is simply not true. The customer pays the company a labor-based fee. The customer pays for the time, knowledge, expertise, and resources that it takes for the company and its freelance writer to professionally research, write, and deliver the copyrighted, example document that the customer may reference as a model of format, content, and style.


Major, companies can feel free to keep doing what they're doing if they think that it is worth the risk and they'll come out ahead in the end. Sadly, I know for a fact that they'll be mistaken. It's a matter of time before a new lawsuit arises. If they think that they can take on the attorney general of California or a major university in federal court, more power to them. They just need to make sure that they have at least $500,000 in their legal fund, as attorneys are much more expensive today than they were in 1997. TPS and RA each paid nearly $300,000 by the end of the BU lawsuit, and there was no guarantee that they would win. Don't believe me? Shoot an email to TPS and ask Mike Siravo to relive the nightmare for you.

Right, but the company does not pay the contracted writer anything extra just because it retains copyright ownership. So if the writer sells copyrights to the company, why the company is not willing to sell the rights to their clients..

Freelance writers are employed in a work-for-hire capacity. They don't own the papers that they write any more than Google engineers own the code that they produce. This is legal fact.

That means the contracted writer CAN (and does) retain the copyrights to the work he/she produced and s/he CAN re-sell the rights to the client through his/her agent (ie. through the company). The company does not own copyrights - ONLY the contracted writer (who shares the copyrights with his/her customer) does.

That is completely false.

1. Ask the members of this forum who freelance for law-abiding, American companies.

2. Study work-for-hire law. I suggest that you start here: copylaw.com/new_articles/wfh.html and keepyourcopyrights.org/copyright/rights/work-for-hire.

So you suggest that there is no way (and it may be even illegal) for a contracted writer to keep the rights to the work?

The point is - the company can choose if it wants to keep the copyrights of the produced work or not. Some companies prefer to make more money and keep the rights to be able to resell the work to multiple customers, some not.

I couldn't find anything on the NYS Assembly site about this topic via that link or a key word search. Can you provide a link to it or the Bill #?

If a "custom" essay company communicates to its freelance writers that they own the copyright, but-as a marketing tactic-the company tells its prospective clients that the company does not resell the papers that it writes, that company is committing blatant fraud. If the freelance writers own the copyright, they can and WILL immediately resell the papers. Therefore, if a company grants copyright ownership to its freelance writers, it had better not falsely advertise a "no-resale" policy.


That is 100% true, as it relates to the freelance writers. That is absolutely not true as it relates to customers. Plus, it is ILLEGAL for the company to advertise that customers own the copyright. If it's merely an "internal company preference," customers don't need to know, and the company doesn't have to break the law.


Try the next link.

It basically depends on the terms of the contract.

1) Some companies do not sign any contracts/agreements, thereby leaving the writer to do what s/he will with the research (or do not include a `copyright ownership' clause in their service contract)

2) Some explicitly specify their ownership of the work in their service/work for hire contracts. This means that they own the copyright and the writer has no legal right to resell it;

3) Companies which own the copyright retain the right to resell. The legits tell their customers that they have retained this right and may act upon it and resell the work. Others do not. The difference between the two is clear.

The problem is that the companies that take this route are usually the same companies that outwardly advertise a "no resale" policy to increase profits, thereby defrauding the customer, inviting academic fraud, and breaking the law.

Major seems to be suggesting that a certain company explicitly transfers copyright ownership to its freelance writers. I'd really like to see a copy of that company's freelance writer contract. Then, I would like to find out if that company advertises a "no resale" policy to prospective customers.

No doubt about it.


I really don't see how or why ... If there is such a company (could be), I would like to see their (client) Terms of Service agreement, etc ...

Want to add something - some companies don't resell because UK law is a bit vague here. Are you allowed to resell a service which was specifically created for a buyer? The double-selling prob ...

Any company which uses a no resale policy to encourage customers to submit the work as their own are in violation of the law (not to mention encouraging academic fraud, etc). Hence, they MUST explicitly state that despite the no resale policy CUSTOMERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SUBMIT THE WORK AS THEIR OWN AND, SHOULD THEY DO SO, WOULD BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTUAL TERMS THEY AGREED TO.

Right-forgot about that document.

What the owners of certain companies don't seem to appreciate is that if their advertised policies, freelance writer contract, and client contract contain contradictory statements regarding copyright, they can be in for a world of monetary/legal hurt.

Let me put it this way-if I were working for the office of an attorney general of ANY state in the US, I guarantee you that at least half of the sites in the industry would be fined and enjoined.

There is nothing to transfer since the copyright ownership was never transfered to the company.


If the company freelance writer explicitly agrees not to publish or resell the work other than to grant exclusive rights to the work to the customer then there's probably nothing more interesting to see.


Good point.

Let me ask you a question, A. Would this be your defense in court when defending against a major university or an attorney general?

Copyright never transferred to the company ... so, the service contract/work for hire agreement makes no mention of copyright?

In that case - and according to both UK and US law - the writer owns the copyright.

Bottom line: the company's internal "agreement" with each writer has absolutely no bearing on the existing laws that bind the SELLER of academic research materials. In the eyes of the law, the SITE is the seller, not the freelance writer that the site employs.

Pls explain ... am very interested.

In the US, this is where arguments related to "implied-in-fact contract" would come into play.

That being the case (and I agree), how is it that some companies do not have agreements in place?

Another question - most industries are regulated. Why isn't ours? What on earth will it take to put some regulations in place?

Any who respond with `because our services are illegal' ... don't. Only illegal if we knowingly allow customers to submit the work as their own or `subtly hint' that they may.


I see ... makes sense - a bit like our `verbal understanding' as contract ...

Then it may suggest that no agreement between the writer and the comopnay has any bearing on the existing laws. If a company advertises 'no resell for X months' policy and has internal "agreement" with each writer, does the agreement really matter?


The writer grants exclusive rights (and gives up his resell/publish rights) to the produced work to the client.

The honest ones do. Or, at least, inform their customers if they intend to resell, etc.