I recently read a newsletter I received from an apparently successful freelance writer. I’m disgusted with the unethical practices this writer promotes.
The author of the newsletter claims that rewriting PLR articles makes sense and is a profitable way to earn money as a freelance writer. She states that rewriting PLR articles is a goldmine, and that you don’t need to be an experienced writer to write and sell your articles.
These are unethical statements to make. Read on:
Wikipedia’s definition of plagiarism is, “the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.” A quick search on “definition plagiarism” returns the following from various sources:
- The act of appropriating the literary composition of another author, or excerpts, ideas, or passages therefrom, and passing the material off as one’s own creation.
- Taking, using, and passing off as your own, the ideas or words or work of another.
- Is using another person’s ideas or creative work without giving credit to that person.
- To plagiarize is to take and use another person’s thoughts, writings or inventions as one’s own, without acknowledging or giving the source of the ideas and expressions.
- A form of cheating by means of the unacknowledged, literal reproduction of ideas and material of other persons in the guise of new and original work.
Where is the newsletter author’s integrity? Rewriting PLR articles and passing them off as your own is plagiarism. Encouraging other freelance writers to do the same to make money is horrible.
Freelance writers and those looking to break into freelance writing should avoid rewriting someone else’s content and passing it off as their own. If you’re going to call yourself a professional writer, then be a professional. Making money by rewriting someone else’s text should never be a shortcut a professional freelance writer takes. Be honest, and earn your money honestly.
James, is content that a company buys to fill a weekly newspaper column, for instance, where the friendly mechanic gives readers car-care tips, considered a PLR (Private Label Rights) product? If so, would the mechanic be a plagiarist when the content is run under his name? I think yes and no, respectively.
@ Karen – No, that’s not PLR, actually. It’s PLR if the mechanic sells that piece on car-care tips to 40 newspapers and continues to make money off it with every newspaper he sells it to.
James, I apologize for being unclear in my question. What I meant is the mechanic is running an automobile-repair company, and copy that he buys weekly from a copy seller fills his newspaper column (he doesn’t write it). Likely the same copy is sold to other mechanics by the seller, thus, it is PLR copy. [As an aside, actually it might be that the newspapers are sold the copy b/c then the copy seller could see easier which overlapping news markets to avoid, and the editors then sell the copy to automotive businesses to increase their papers' advertising income. I don't know how that type of copy business works.]
From what you’ve written, I believe you’d consider the mechanics plagiarists b/c they publish PLR copy under their names. I don’t agree at this time, but I do feel the practice is deceptive to the target audience members who don’t know the copy is a PLR product and who don’t know that using it as such is an accepted(?) business practice. It’s not a clean practice; it is better to avoid the appearance of intentional deception and publish the PLR copy as public info pieces sponsored by auto companies, not tie it directly to mechanics and pretend they wrote it.
How about candidates who use speech writers but who don’t edit the speech–not a word is their own, and how about authors who use ghostwriters? Plagiarists? Aren’t they similar to those who call PLR products their own?
You’ve raised an interesting point and I am trying to understand your view of plagiarism, but perhaps deception is the operative word instead of plagiarism.
Thanks for MWP. I read many of the articles this past weekend, but now I have to clean (literally). Time to move about the house! Best regards James.
Hey Karen,
Here’s a post that explains exactly why I don’t like PLR articles:
http://menwithpens.ca/plr-content
My view of plagiarism is something completely different. Plagiarism is content theft – you take something that does not belong to you and claim credit.
In cases of PLR and ghostwriting, you have bought the content and it is therefore yours. If it’s yours, you can of course claim it as such and do what you would with it.
I have no issues with ghostwriting at all – in fact, that’s how I make my living in most cases. Web writers very rarely get credit for the work they do, and that’s okay. My name in lights isn’t as important to me as making sure my kids are warm and fed, you know?
So my complaint isn’t with ghostwriting (I support it) or plagiarism (I hate it) but with PLR content that gluts the Internet. Check out that link – it’ll help.
Never really looked at the information like that before. Thanks!
Well – check let’s say – ezineqrticles.com – there are ALOT of same articles, people just rewrite the same articles over and over again
Sad…
.-= Buy car wax´s last blog ..Black Car Wax =-.
Hi, I do see your point although plagiarism and rewriting PLR content is different. With PLR you have rights to do what you like with the content. This includes rewriting it. I do agree though that if you are freelancing as a profesisonal writer then you should use PLR content when writing for other people unless you tell them that is what you are doing. I think that PLR articles are great for research, if the quality of them are good. So, my conclusion is that I see both sides of the coin with this argument.
Rewriting plr is plagiarism if and only if the original writer forbids you to use it as plr. The question of identity and originality is fundamental to writing; therefore clearly defined standards have to established for writing.In my own opinion plr articles do not breach the originality of a first author if the same author says- ‘yes all can use this piece- for free or for a fee’.
I agree with Tradus Lee. How can publishing PLR be plagiarism – the author has given you the right to reprint it. I find it even harder to see how *rewritten* PLR is plagiarism – not only do you have the right to publish it but it is no longer in its original form. By your own description, plagiarism is “unauthorized use…”. Nowhere is publishing PLR content unauthorized. Unwise perhaps, but not unauthorized.
Mind you, publishing rewritten PLR is not “authoring”. In copyright terms it is a “derivative work”. It has its place.