Dan Brown to be sued by Holy Blood authors.

[sesmo_k]

Well, both books have the same premise, one is presented as a work of fiction, the other as the product of (ahem!) serious reseach. Can you copyright dubious historical theories?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2061048,00.htm

and from my favourite comic
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006090537,,00.html

Who should win?

[Mephisto]

I don't understand how the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail can claim plagarism if their non-fiction work is based on historical speculation. If the courts rule in their favor, wouldn't that make it a precedent for the Knights of Templar or the Cathars to sue Baigent and Legh for plagarizing THEIR story?

It's interesting to note that Richard Leigh appeared in a Discovery (or was it the History Channel?) channel presentation about the Holy Grail. It was naturally aimed at those who made the book popular and tried to answer some of the questions it raised. Leigh had no qualms about appearing in a documentary involving both his book and Brown's (it was about a year after the books release).

To be honest, I think Leigh may be slighted that Brown's book received more acclaim (and an Opie movie with Tom Hanks) over his dry (but enjoyable) tome with limited appeal.

[plindboe]

A cunning move by the Holy blood authors to get more people to buy their books. They should be millionaires within long.

[richardm]

Authors of Holy Grail, Holy Blood:Leigh, Baigent.
Antagonist in "The da Vinci Code": Leigh Teabing.
Author of "The da Vinci Code": 'I've never read no book wot has anyfink like wot I writ in my book'.

Well, I don't know that Dan Brown is saying such a thing, but I think at the very least he should have cited the other book, since it's clear he's had a good plunder of it. Whether it's plagiarism per se, I don't really know, not having read the former.

[Matabiri]

A cunning move by the Holy blood authors to get more people to buy their books. They should be millionaires within long.

Both books are published by the same company...

[Wudang]

Author of "The da Vinci Code": 'I've never read no book wot has anyfink like wot I writ in my book'.

Well, I don't know that Dan Brown is saying such a thing, but I think at the very least he should have cited the other book, since it's clear he's had a good plunder of it. Whether it's plagiarism per se, I don't really know, not having read the former.

I'm pretty certain that there is an explicit reference to HBHG in DVC.

[Bikewer]

We note that these lawsuits are rarely filed until the book in question has sold X-millions of copies, and there's a movie deal...

[Geckko]

Authors of Holy Grail, Holy Blood:Leigh, Baigent.
Antagonist in "The da Vinci Code": Leigh Teabing.


Very good. I hadn't picked that up.

Still, I imagine that that the natural defence would be how do you plagiarise non-fictional work with a work of fiction.

[ChristineR]

In the U.S., you cannot copyright ideas, just the expression of ideas. In other words, this rather old legend about the Holy Grail being the descendents of Jesus, can not be copywritten, but if Brown actually lifted words from their book, it would be admissible. Since the books are more or less about the same subject, it's not inconceivable that Brown could have copied a passage or two to save time.

[bigred]

A cunning move by the Holy blood authors to get more people to buy their books. They should be millionaires within long.
Yep. Just like the Tom Cruise goofiness. All about creating a stir to milk some more sales. Sadly, it works.

[Luke T.]

Are you saying Dan Brown totally copied REO HolyBlood?

:D

I'm pretty certain that there is an explicit reference to HBHG in DVC.

There is. I've read the DaVinci Code. Well, unabridged book on tape. Brown specifically mentions HBHG more than once.

[bob_kark]

People are surprised that loonies are loony? IIRC, they already discovered that the French guy (I think I remember him claiming to be a decendent of Jesus or some such nonsense) they site in HBHG, and whose story they essentially based the book on, was a complete fraud. I guess, that would actually make HBHG a work of fiction as well.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The nutter in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Plantard

[sesmo_k]

Just read today's papers (its been a busy day!), HBHG sales have gone up by 3500%. Wonder if that was the point of the law suit??? :rolleyes:

[Renfield]

A cunning move by the Holy blood authors to get more people to buy their books. They should be millionaires within long.
[/I]

Yes, indeed. Any publicity is good publicity, as the still bestselling James Frey can attest. Even if it comes from a frivolous lawsuit.

[bob_kark]

You know, the worst thing about this is that there'll be a whole new wave of woos talking about Templars and Priori of Sion.

[Luke T.]

You know, the worst thing about this is that there'll be a whole new wave of woos talking about Templars and Priori of Sion.

My favorite woo board has added a subforum just to discuss the DaVinci Code.

http://communities.anomalies.net/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=63

ETA: Not many topics in it just yet. They aren't big readers. But after the movie comes out...

[Art Vandelay]

In the U.S., you cannot copyright ideas, just the expression of ideas.What about characters?

[ChristineR]

What about characters?

Same thing. The idea of a crudsading journalist looking for the truth about the Holy Grail can appear in two books. But if the has the same name in both books, no good.

Hence the spate of books about teen aged wizards who are not named Harry Potter, or Larry Nutter, and the occasional lawsuit against publishers of books where the young wizard is named "Tanya Grotter (http://news.bbc.co.uk/cbbcnews/hi/uk/newsid_2914000/2914331.stm)."

[Art Vandelay]

So is David Copperfield in violation of copyright laws? What about the guy on Arrested Development named George Michael?

[TragicMonkey]

In the U.S., you cannot copyright ideas, just the expression of ideas. In other words, this rather old legend about the Holy Grail being the descendents of Jesus, can not be copywritten, but if Brown actually lifted words from their book, it would be admissible. Since the books are more or less about the same subject, it's not inconceivable that Brown could have copied a passage or two to save time.

My favorite history professor was approached by a Hollywood studio that wanted to buy the rights to "a story of his" that had been brought to their attention. It was actually a historical article he wrote for an academic journal. Apparently somebody thought the events he analyzed would make a good movie, and sent the abstract to somebody in Hollywood who completely failed to realize that my professor didn't invent the events or the characters. Last I heard, good old Dr C was in negotiations "just to find out how much they'd offer".

[ChristineR]

David Copperfield by Dickens is long out of copyright. George Micheal is a common name, and is not intended to be a reference to the singer, although there may be satrical comparisons in keeping with fair use.

[Mephisto]

You know, the worst thing about this is that there'll be a whole new wave of woos talking about Templars and Priori of Sion.

And a whole new set of woo from the Catholic church in opposition to the previous woo . . . Now you know where ad naseum came from? :)