Re this article about Glenn Beck purchasing the rights to a more or less completed manuscript and publishing it as his own work!
Is this commonly done? Purchasing an unknown authors work and publishing it under your name?
Is that any different than having a ghost writer write a book for you?
In ghost writing you are usually giving the ghost writer the raw material to craft it into a readable work. In the Beck example he’s just buying a work outright and slapping his name on it.
It’s fairly common where attaching a “big name” to a work will boost sales. These day’s its most often done without directly saying that the big name is the author - e.g. “Tom Clancy’s …”. Try working out from the covers which “The Saint” books were actually written by Lesley Charteris though.
It’s also one of the dodgier practices that medical companies sometimes indulge in (although reversed). They give the near-complete manuscript to someone else to publish.
The technical term by the way is “moral rights” - the right to have or not have your name associated with a work. You can buy and sell them just like copyright - although claiming a moral right to a work you haven’t made a substantial contribution to is often considered academic misconduct.
Yeah, this seems a bit different in that it doesn’t appear (from the linked Salon piece) that Beck had anything to do with writing the thing at all. But the original author is listed on the cover (Beck’s name is larger, of course).
That said, I have to say I’m not sure I understand the outrage of the Salon article author (who “had line-edited an early draft” of the book in question and is not the original author). She was not “duped by Glenn Beck,” she was paid (presumably) to do a job by the original author (or her publisher). The fact Beck later paid for the title does not retroactively affect the job she did. That the book will be marketed and sold in a manner she finds distasteful and to a readership she would prefer not to be associated with are factors beyond her control or the scope of her job. Even more curious is her contention she had no problems with the book itself if taken as an innocent piece of speculative fiction. Presumably it is still speculative fiction; Beck’s involvement will no doubt bring it to a wider audience, and the concerns of its somewhat polemical subject (which apparently relates to UN interference in sovereign law) can be addressed and debunked if necessary.
It’s very unusual. This is the first I can think of a case in my 30 years following publishing. There’s no reason to do it: you can pay an unknown author far less than an established name, and it’d be a big risk to most publishers if the truth got out. And successful authors never have problems writing additional books.
Ghostwriting is different – the writer is contracted beforehand. Sometimes they do write an entire book: The William Shatner “Tekwars” SF book were written by others, with perhaps a basic idea from Shatner. To his Credit, he wanted to credit his ghosts as co-authors, but the publisher didn’t let him, fearing people would think that co-author wrote the whole thing. If you read his acknowledgements in the front of the book, however, he always thanks one author for helping.
I don’t think in legal terms there’s any difference between this case and ghostwriting.
Is there even a legal definition of what comprises “ghostwriting” in the first place?
If so, does anyone know it? Or how to find it?
There’s going to be a contract involved that turns the rights over to the person named on the book, and possibly some wording that dissuades the actual author from publicly revealing their role. Otherwise, I don’t think the law is a factor.
I understand that generally speaking the contract between the writer and the credited author and the publisher is going to be what determines how things go.
What I’m wondering is that I thought there was a fairly set precedent for what “ghostwriting” is: someone has an idea or a story they want told and they don’t have the time or ability to tell it, so they hire someone else (a “ghost”) to take their material and make it publishable, with it being part of the contract that the ghost isn’t going to get official credit for the work.
Co-authorship is also pretty clearly defined in practical terms - there is usually a well-known franchise, or a “big name” author involved. Another author is hired specifically to continue the franchise or to do the grunt-work for the big name, and the co-author gets the publicity-by-association of the franchise or big author name on the finished work. Again, the co-author knows from the beginning what they’re getting into
What the situation here is an “author” actually BUYING someone’s finished (or nearly finished) work, and representing it as their own, because they bought it from them.
To me, while I’m sure it’s not illegal, and depending on circumstances, may or may not be ethical (from my own perspective) it sure doesn’t seem to fit the definition of either ghostwriting or co-authorship.
That’s why I wondered if there WAS an established definintion of ghostwriting that could possibly include a “ghost” that didn’t intend or didn’t know they were going to be later “ghosted” by someone else at the time they wrote the work in question.
I dunno about legal or ethical but I hope my pride and self respect never drop so low as to allow me to pull something like that.
Would you be willing to sell your story to the guy with less pride and self respect?
Yes 
But to be more clear I mean if I write a book and Glenn Beck wants give me a gazillion dollars I’ll sell to him (I’d probably want credit in there somewhere). But if I pulled a Glenn Beck what the hell am I to tell people? Hey, I bought this book and slapped my name on it? Now, I guess if Glenn happily admits he just did it because he made more money and the author got a nice chunk of change so its an economic win win for all involved I guess that isn’t too cheesy. Now, if he acts like he accomplished anything to be proud of by buying the thing thats a whole nuther kettle of fish.
Some years ago there was a scandal involving a woman whose novel turned out to be a copy of a novel by David Gemmell. The woman claimed complete innocence - she had hired a ghost writer to write her book, so it was the ghost writer who was the plagiarist; anyone who disparaged her and her creativity either misunderstood the fact that she was victim or was being deliberately cruel to her. See here Making Light: Weirdly Similar.... and here http://dearauthor.com/features/letters-of-opinion/top-10-tips-for-plagairists/ for more of the bizarre details (including Wiccan curses!)
I’m no expert on moral rights, but my understanding is that the whole point of moral rights is that they can’t be permanently transferred. They always belong to the original author.
And US copyright doesn’t recognize moral rights.
This is the thing I’m curious about (or would be, if I gave a damn about Beck at all). I’m not wading into the morass of sound bites and press releases to find out, but I do wonder exactly how much credit Beck is taking for “writing” this book, and if maybe “outing” him as a non-author was the sole intent of the Salon piece (if so, mission accomplished, I guess).
I can think of one reason to do it. In our celebrity-obsessed culture, a book credited to a recognised name like Beck, with an already-established fan base, is likely to sell far more copies than the same book credited to an unknown author. Presumably, that means the publisher makes a higher profit from the book, which is why they’re in the publishing business to start with.
The image above shows the book’s cover credits both Beck (in big type) and Parke (in rather smaller type), using the phrase “with Harriet Parke” to describe her participation. That’s a pretty common arrangement on many ghost-written autobiographies, where the subject’s participation in preparing the book’s copy was minimal or non-existant anyway. It’s the celeb’s job to market and publicise the book: the copy itself can be purchased like so many cans of beans from any jobbing hack.
Parke was presumably happy to sell her manuscript on the basis that the book would be marketed primarily under Beck’s name in this way, just as any conventional ghost-writer does. Beck has presumably worked out a spiel he can use when promoting the book which saves face for all concerned, and he’s the only one likely to look a fool if someone catches him in an obvious lie. Where’s the problem?
Isn’t this pretty much how James Patterson publishes 10 books every year? He commissions authors to write a book and slaps his name on it.