Bagans’s 2019 book Ghost-Hunting for Dummies became the subject of a serious authorship dispute after paranormal researcher Troy Taylor stated that he had helped Bagans research material for the project but had not given permission for his original material to be used. Taylor said he ultimately received a “substantial payment” from Bagans in a settlement, indicating that the disagreement moved beyond a casual complaint and was resolved financially. The controversy widened when Kenny Biddle, writing for Skeptical Inquirer, argued that the book displayed a pronounced hostility toward skeptics and scientists and alleged similarities between portions of Bagans’s text and work by other writers, including Joe Nickell. Both Skeptical Inquirer and the Society for Psychical Research noted passages they considered similar to material published elsewhere. The episode damaged the book’s claim to straightforward originality, although the source does not describe a court judgment conclusively finding Bagans liable for plagiarism. The most secure historical description is therefore a documented permissions dispute, settlement, and published accusations of unattributed borrowing—not a proven criminal act.
Preparing the daily feature…
AI concept artworkArchive Record · 2010s
The Ghost-Hunting for Dummies Plagiarism Dispute and Settlement with Troy Taylor
Zak Bagans / Ghost-Hunting for Dummies / 2010s
Bagans’s 2019 book Ghost-Hunting for Dummies became the subject of a serious authorship dispute after paranormal researcher Troy Taylor stated that he had helped Bagans research material for the project but had not given permission for his original material to be used. Taylor said he ultimately received a “substantial payment” from Bagans in a settlement, indicating that the disagreement moved beyond a casual complaint and was resolved financially. The controversy widened when Kenny Biddle, writing for Skeptical Inquirer, argued that the book displayed a pronounced hostility toward skeptics and scientists and alleged similarities between portions of Bagans’s text and work by other writers, including Joe Nickell. Both Skeptical Inquirer and the Society for Psychical Research noted passages they considered similar to material published elsewhere. The episode damaged the book’s claim to straightforward originality, although the source does not describe a court judgment conclusively finding Bagans liable for plagiarism. The most secure historical description is therefore a documented permissions dispute, settlement, and published accusations of unattributed borrowing—not a proven criminal act.
The daily feature is taking an intermission. There’s still an entire archive to explore.
