Ownership of the customized writing - I don't own the essay and can't do anything except reading it?

... nor do you. In fact, you never did.


Which law you are talking about? The one that was never made? If they have problem with transferring the copyrights to customers, why don't they lower their prices?

I have provided the example in which a company actually transfers the copyright to the customers.



You are absolutely wrong.



You are just trying to argue without having a clue. Please get schooled first. I have provided sources for all my points. Why don't you provide any to prove me wrong? You keep saying my points are contradictory, but do not provide evidence to support your claims. Do you want to say US laws are bulls-i*? Hey, what "make you" think that?

First you said:


Then jumped on saying:


I think you are confused. In that case,


I think I should leave you here. I have whipped your ass to the extent that it has started bleeding. LMAO!

You are quoting GENERAL copyright law as it relates to non-academic works. There are specific laws about academic works that supersede general copyright laws.

Please stop trying to debate with people who are much smarter and more knowledgable than you.

Of course, people buy them. Every time, I have to write a new paper. I can understand why you are amazed, as you resell the same pathetic paper 100 times. ;)

The laws regarding creating work for someone else's academic credit, that exist in most states and in many other locales.


One has nothing to do with the other. Work gets created at the price people are willing to pay. It's basic economics. I turn down work regularly from customers that don't want to pay what I charge. If I didn't have customers willing to pay what I charge, I'd either have to work cheaper or find a new profession. Google "supply and demand" for an intro to the topic.


Which one of these things, from your own link, do you think makes a custom-written model essay automatically a work-for-hire?

"part of a larger literary work, such as an article in a magazine or a poem or story in an anthology,

part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, such as a screenplay

a translation,

a supplementary work such as an afterword, an introduction, chart, editorial note, bibliography, appendix, or index,

a compilation,

an instructional text,

a test, or answer material for a test, or

an atlas."

The rest of your quotes lay out my argument rather clearly, so...thanks?

Just because a certain company owner chooses not to resell his/her papers that his/her freelance contractors write for his/her company does not mean that his/her company does not own the copyright of each paper. I'm quite sure that you catch my drift.

As dictated by US laws, no person or company may transfer the copyright of any academic work. Customers pay companies for the time, labor, resources, and expertise that it takes to produce the copyrighted paper, not the paper itself. As also dictated by US laws, the company retains full ownership. Purely as a courtesy, certain companies choose not to resell their own copyrighted works until a certain number of months have elapsed. Six months later (for example), when another customers buys the paper, that customer does not own the copyright, either. The copyright of the paper always remains with the company.

Okay. Why don't you provide any evidence?


Yeah. Knowledgeable! Like you said:



Please keep this knowledge to yourself. LMAO!


That is absolutely understandable that the company owns the copyright. I am just asking why it is offensive to publish the paper instantly. That "courtesy" makes people break the rules as they get the chance of turning the papers in.

Please do not be angry on what I am pointing out. This is the concern of most of the customers here. I do not work for any writing company, but many other writers do. You better understand the position, right? Why is it difficult to explain the things? You guys do not try to understand the point of argument, rather try to prove others wrong. If you think you are right, you can simply state the facts. Why to throw garbage at each other? Does that make you look any more knowledgeable?


"Clearly, a freelance writing project does not fit neatly into any of those nine categories though it may be considered a contribution to a compilation sometimes."

Please read, and let me know where I am wrong. I am actually learning from you guys. Thanks!

Is this wrong?

freelancewritinggigs.com/writing-success-resource-center/ - or freelance writers though, it is important to know that all of their creations fall under the category of a "literary" work"


This is because they do not know they cannot turn the paper in as it is. You should clearly tell clients before confirming the deal that you own the rights of the work created by you. More often than not, customers assumes they purchase the rights to submit them.


This was unnecessary to write, by the way.

If you understood the source you linked to, you wouldn't need to ask for clarification. Nothing produced in this industry is for use in part of a compilation.


First, the blog you linked to is horribly written. Second, is there a reason you didn't finish quoting the sentence you cited? Could possibly because the full sentence completely disproves your point:

"For freelance writers though, it is important to know that all of their creations fall under the category of a "literary" work and qualify for copyright protection."


Yes, they do, and thanks, I already do. My customers know what is legal and what is illegal.


Only if you're a scammer that works with shady people.


Apparently not, because you don't seem to know how it works.

Why don't you provide your own source that proves your point?


That does not disprove my point. I say writers should transfer the copyrights to the students, does that mean they have to transfer others' rights (the rights they don't own)? I must say you are not qualified for this level of debate.


You do not pick your customers, by the way. Customers pick you. Do you have any evidence that you clearly state them not to use you paper for submission purposes? How do you know your customers know what is legal and what not? Do you ask them? Any evidence?


That means the companies you write for are scams, too, and so are you. You had this problem with biscuit and sandy. Remember?


I think you have just come to learn that concept, and you are trying to show that your 2 English degrees have made you learn things at least.


Even if a custom-written model paper is not a work-for-hire, what is wrong with selling the paper?


In this case, companies hold the copyrights and they have to pay the writers. In case of private customers, writers get full amount of the paper. They are ready to transfer rights to the companies, but not to the customers, because of the fear that customers will use the papers illegally. In fact, the writing companies give the same benefit to the customers in terms of "courtesy".

Please provide your own sources for academic freelance writing before arguing more on this topic. Thanks.

Edit: I will definitely agree with you guys, if the sources are worth believing.

In that case smart students may prefer to choose a company that either doesn't resell their papers at all or resell them after, let's say, 10-50-100 years..


We've discussed it already and it's still unclear what US laws that specifically discusscopyright transfer of any academic work you mean. I couldn't find absolutely anything related to 'copyright' + 'transfer' + 'academic work' in these laws. Unless you mean that most companies don't transfer copyright to make sure their client doesn't submit the paper as his/her own, then I agree. But I still cannot agree that it is "illegal to transfer the copyright of any academic work" because I found no mention of that.

Precisely.

Fine. Here's the dictionary definition of compilation:

dictionary.reference.com/browse/compilation?s=t

Now why don't you tell me how any of the s-i*ty blogs you cite as sources actually has anything relevant to say?


Huh?


We pick each other. We both have to agree to work together. This also has nothing to do with what's being discussed.


I am not posting confidential emails between my clients and I, but any one of them could confirm this. Again, this has nothing to do with the actual discussion being discussed.


Actually, the issue with sandy had nothing to do with this whatsoever, and biscuit had been fully informed of the law before he decided to break it.


Nothing. Why do you feel it necessary to make multiple posts in a row when you could just reply with one?

LMAO! Okay. So this is what you were trying to prove ever since the argument started. Joke of the century. Hahahahaha.
I think you have given enough proof of your ignorance. It would be better if you did not reply to the post. LMAO! Can't stop laughing!


Oops! ;)


You think sandy was not shady? That implies you were the scammer. Wow!

With my caps-lock on, I declare, PHEELYKS IS ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED!

No, this is how I'm countering your vague assertion that my (and other writers') work is somehow part of a compilation, therefore putting it in a "work-for-hire" position.

I'm not sure if you're actually stupid or you just think it's fun to be incoherent. Either way, you're losing here.


Of course sandy was shady. That doesn't mean she wasn't informed of the law.

Actually, this better suits you. I am not losing anything and you know that, pheeLeaks! LMAO!

Let's see:

1) You post irrelevant "evidence" from poorly written blogs and fail to explain the relevance of these source.

2) You make contradictory statements, deny you make them, and then say "so what if I did?"

3) You make accusations without any evidence.

Do you really think so? I think you overlooked all other posts, and just focused on that compilations part. Hahahahaha. I at least provided the sources. Academic writing does not fit under compilation and/or literary work, because you do not believe blogs. Why do you apply work-for-hire in this case? Your companies are fooling you. You cannot operate on work-for-hire basis.

Do you have any legal proof that the writers cannot transfer copyrights? Why do you keep ignoring my questions? Hey pheelyks, you have nothing to say, which is why you are just making baseless claims.

I already told you such level of debate is beyond you understanding. That is why you can't understand any argument and what you understand is that you are ignorant and now you are pretending that you are not.

I asked you to explain how any of your sources applied to work in this industry. You quoted the compilation part. If there's an actual explanation for your nonsense, by all means provide it.


It very much is literary work, and is not compilation-related.


I never made this claim. It would definitely create greater legal liability, though.

I already told you I pointed out different arguments.



My point is proved. You agreed! LMAO!

For amnateeb, the clueless moron:

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

3. Nothing contained within this section shall prevent any person from
selling or offering for sale a publication or other written material
which shall have been registered under the United States laws of
copyright, provided, however, that the owner of such copyright shall
have given his authorization or approval for such sale and provided
further that such publication or other written material shall NOT be
intended for submission as a dissertation, thesis, term paper, essay,
report or other written assignment to such educational institution
within the state of New York in fulfillment of the requirements for a
degree, diploma, certificate or course of study."

SOURCE:
State of New York
law.onecle.com/new-york/education/EDN0213-B_213-B.html

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

(f) Authorized sale of copyrighted material.--Nothing
contained within this section shall prevent any person from
selling or offering for sale a publication or other written
material which shall have been registered under the United
States Laws of Copyright: Provided, however, That the owner of
such copyright shall have given his authorization or approval
for such sale: And, provided further, That said person shall NOT
know or under the circumstances have reason to know that said
assignment is intended for submission either in whole, or
substantial part, under a student's name as a dissertation,
thesis, term paper, essay, report or other written assignment to
such educational institution within the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania in fulfillment of the requirements for a degree,
diploma, certificate or course of study.

SOURCE:
State of Pennsylvania
law.onecle.com/pennsylvania/crimes-and-offenses/00.073.024.000.ht ml

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

Nothing contained in this chapter shall prevent any person from selling
or offering for sale a publication or other written material which shall have
been registered under the United States laws of copyright, provided the
owner of such copyright shall have given his authorization or approval for
such sale and provided such publication or other written material shall
NOT be intended for submission as a dissertation, thesis, term paper,
essay, report or other written assignment to an educational institution within
the state of Connecticut in fulfillment of the requirements for a degree,
diploma, certificate or course of study. (P.A. 73-581, S. 4.)

SOURCE:
State of Connecticut
legaltips.org/connecticut/Chap949b.aspx#Sec53-392b.aspx

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

Nearly every state has similar laws. Any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or association that offers to transfer copyright to a student has crossed the "reasonably should have known that the written material will be submitted for academic credit" threshold for committing a crime.

GAME OVER

(Major, you may also want to take note.)

Okay. That is what I wanted, WB. You could have already stated these facts. I definitely accept this, and believe that this will be helpful for others who do not actually know about these laws. One more question, please, if you are able to answer. Does the "courtesy" your writing companies provide to students not make them break the law? Hey, what about ghostwriting? Does your law allow that?

One more thing you should note that. Your sources do not say that ownership cannot be transferred to students. What you have provided so far is: students should not submit the papers under their names. This is not debatable. I state earlier:

I think that you have comprehension and denial issues.

Why are you ignoring this?

1. I don't have a company.

2. Again, you have a reading/comprehension/denial problem:


3. No essay company can "make" a student break the law, just as no gun company can "make" a customer commit armed robbery.

Is it okay now? This is not answered, by the way. :)

Amna - seems that others are not taking you seriously either. Grow a brain and then come back.

Your interpretation makes sense to prove your point, but this is still one of many possible interpretations. ; ). A client may want to have copyright transferred to him/her to make sure the "custom paper" is never resold to other parties (the client paid a lot of money for the custom project so he/she doesn't want any other party to use it for a fraction of the paid price in the future). Owning the copyright to the project guarantees it will never be resold/reused again and this is a very valid reason why a client would want to have it transfered.

Besides, not owning the copyright does NOT guarantee that the paper will not be submitted for academic credit.

Neither my interpretation (which is based on actual case law) nor your interpretation matters. The fact is that any individual, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or association that offers to transfer copyright to a student has crossed the "reasonably should have known that the written material will be submitted for academic credit" threshold for committing a crime. This is not a matter of dispute. Do you REALLY think that any US District Court Judge is stupid enough to believe your apparent defense that you had "no reason to believe" or "reasonably should not have known" that the customer "may" have intended to submit your paper for academic credit, even though you offered to transfer copyright to him/her? C'mon . . . . Any lawyer who advises you to use that defense should be disbarred.


You're completely missing the point and do not understand how judges interpret/adjudicate the law.

I'm not sure if it is the fact; for me it looks more like one of many possible interpretations and we don't know what a judge would think.

And I don't know why you call it a crime - isn't it a misdemeanor? In what state is it a crime?


If we want to play a purist game (it seems legal interpretation doesn't exist in your books if you want to prove or disapprove your point) - let me ask this:

Do you REALLY think that a company providing custom essays to students have "no reason to believe" or "reasonably should not have known" that the customer "may" have intended to submit your paper for academic credit"?

WritersBeware getting old.... he lost another debate.

Actually, I do.


OK, I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to stop taking you seriously if you keep posting comments like that. A misdemeanor is a crime. Plus, FYI, every paper ever sold is a separate offense!


When a company goes as far as clearly stating in its CUSTOMER CONTRACT that it not only forbids academic fraud in ANY form, but will also assist law enforcement and/or civil plaintiffs in pursuing anyone who does commit academic fraud, there is absolutely NOTHING more that a research company can do. Until case law shows that the government successfully shut down the gun manufacturing industry by using your argument, your position has no teeth.

Pheelyks has no point to make as usual, ignore him because I am already too bored reading his nonconstructive posts.

This is not true in any case. Companies definitely know that the customer is going to submit their papers, which is why they give them a period of six months (why not a week or two?) before reselling the paper. The terms and conditions mentioned on their websites are just to pretend that they are abiding by law (education). A perfect paper would not be assured by the companies, if they don't know the papers are intentionally bought for submission.

People who are against students who submit others' works under their names must acknowledge that ghostwriting is illegal, too.

Thinking more about it.. - "a courtesy waiting period" is just an indirect attempt to assist students in committing academic fraud. Changing it to "no courtesy waiting period" is one simple thing a company can do to meet its legal obligations.

How is transferring copyright different from giving a "courtesy waiting period?" The final effect is about the same (an attempt to assist students in committing academic fraud).


Not all companies.

Why not all? Every writing company in the industry is giving that so-called courtesy to its customers.


Actually both are similar issues, but different in one aspect. Both the situations let students commit academic frauds, and by not transferring the copyrights, companies can avail the opportunities of more profits from resale of the papers in future.

Not every. You may check the 2000 websites listed in EssayDirectory.com and will find many that don't.


Agreed. That is probably the major reason why some companies don't do a courtesy of transferring copyright claiming it is illegal (while 'courtesy period' - according to them - is legal).

Sigh... giving the client copyright over the work he bought is not illegal. It does not cross some imagined threshold. >.<

Giving the copyright has nothing to do with the law that prevents students from submitting the work for credit. Even if the student has the copyright, he still cannot submit the work as his own. Copyright is not the same as authorship, silly. (-_-);;;

He can, however, use the work as a "model" and then sell it to another student or some website after he's done with it. This way, the student can offset some of the costs that came with buying the paper in the first place. This is basically what copyrights are for: making money out of the work.


This is true. The "courtesy waiting period" is used by companies to imply that students can pass the works as their own, have them tested for plagiarism, get their grades, and move on within the 6-month period. Any professor who is aware of this practice and wishes to go through the trouble of hunting cheaters down can simply run all of his students' papers through turnitin again after 6 months and file charges of academic dishonesty against students who are found to have samples of their papers up for sale in some website. Even if the student graduated already, the degree can still be revoked. If it goes to court, the company that is selling the paper may be required to show how it acquired the paper. The law-abiding company would have no choice but to reveal the company that sold them the paper, and then this company would be legally obliged to provide details such as when the paper was written and who bought it.

This should be for your own self, WB.



I think this can best address pheeleaks' idiotic concern that companies do not go to school. Lol!

Why, because you say so? That would be a very convincing argument in court.


As usual, you don't know WTF you're "talking" about.


Oh, and good luck posting evidence to counter the LAWS that I quoted.

Because I agree with some relevant statements made by amnateeb and EW_Writer whom you quoted above and replied "As usual, you don't know WTF you're "talking" about."

This is just common sense. What is FreelanceWriter's or other members opinion?

None of the laws you quoted included anything about the "threshold" you imagined.


As usual, you resort to throwing insults instead of engaging the argument.

The point is simple: Granting the copyright to a student does not give the student the right to submit the paper as his own work. It is not illegal for companies to do so. Companies do not grant copyrights because they want to resell the papers themselves.