I'd say in both cases it's pretty much a no. To take another example, producers have input into a movie but nobody would credit them as the sole or even primary movers.
You do get movies that are credited mainly to one person, primarily as a marketing thing, but still.
(In showing my age here, but first movie examples that spring to mind) Steven King's ..., Steven Spielberg's ..., I'm not sure if they're all called Steven though.
Some artists get credit akin to celebrity authors on books a ghost-writer wrote.
Of course, but my contention here is that the director of a movie or the author of a book it's based on has a substantial contribution to driving the work and it is essentially his "vision," while in some of the cases described in this article what is happening is more that an "artist" is putting their name on someone else's work to which they made little contribution.
(In showing my age here, but first movie examples that spring to mind) Steven King's ..., Steven Spielberg's ..., I'm not sure if they're all called Steven though.
Some artists get credit akin to celebrity authors on books a ghost-writer wrote.