I find myself disturbed by the premise behind the lawsuit against Dan Brown, author of "The DaVinci Code."
When looking beyond the issues of Brown as an author and the subject matter of the book, I find myself daunted by this lawsuit.
The lawsuit claims Brown “relied heavily” on the nonfiction book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.” It does not claim he lifted specific text, but that he appropriated themes and ideas.
I'm recalling the news item we saw a few months ago about an author "copyrighting" an idea for a novel (we all agreed it was a doofus plot, but it's still scary they let him copyright the theme/idea.) If this lawsuit against Brown (and publisher Random House) is successful, I'm wondering if we'll see a flood of people suing for copyright infringement of ideas and themes. It boggles my mind.
What happens when an author has extracted an idea from a non-fiction book, and written a fiction story based on that idea? Are none of us safe if we got an idea from something else we read or saw?
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
Didn't we already have a thread discussing the woman who claimed that Rowling stole HP from her? This kind of thing eventually happens anytime an author makes enough money.
Okay, these people may have a stronger case than the "inventor of muggles" did, but it is still fundamentally without merit if they can't show that Brown lifted signicant portions of the text. Besides, they published it as non-fiction. It's nothing to worry about. They're just getting a little publicity here.
Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :
right. That's the real "premise behind the lawsuit."
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :
I am mostly a hack at creative writing but I am a pretty good scholar (i probally have an inflated sense of self worth) and I have a deep problem with any Non-Fiction Writer claiming any form of IP rights over the life of a person who lived and died some 2000 years ago let alone say the biographies people right now a days about famous people.
Its just sheer avarice and pomposity to say "I was the first and I was the best so you clearly relied on me."
Posted by Beth (Member # 2192) on :
Oh, the plot clearly draws heavily on HBHG, no question about it. But HBHG is presented as, you know, fact.
Posted by rcorporon (Member # 2879) on :
I think taht this is a case of the HBHG writers getting greedy.
If I wrote a Roman drama / historical novel, could a Roman historian sue me?
Silly stuff to be sure, and hopefully it will get thrown out.
Posted by yanos (Member # 1831) on :
Of course, you could just not use any real sources for your story. You'd be safe from lawsuits, accuracy, and probably publication as well. Oops... I'd better be careful. I think Disney already patented that idea.
Posted by Johnmac1953 (Member # 3118) on :
I think the term is 'Opportunists' for these fellows. If the book had just been a moderate seller, would they sue? Once something becomes so big that it can't be missed, then it becomes a target, AND NOT BEFORE. Ideas and inspiration come from everywhere, a lot of writers acknowledge the source of what turned into their book. I would love to see a writer acknowledge 'Hatrack'...has it been done yet? If it hasn't I promise here and now that if I get published I will acknowledge Hatrack so there Best Wishes John Mc...
Posted by Ted Galacci (Member # 3254) on :
Doesn't Britain have a loser pays tort system?
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
Well, I've actually read "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," but I haven't read "The DaVinci Code." But I thought the former was promoted as non-fiction---whether you believe that's true or not is up to you---and, if non-fiction, I would think the facts would be open to anybody.
Besides, from some of the descriptions I've read, I thought "The DaVinci Codc" rather resembled a Ted White fantasy novel from the sixties. (The title escapes me.)
Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :
They may lose a bit in court costs, but they're getting millions in free publicity.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :
Not to mention for all the books (christian theology influenced or otherwise) that claim to "crack" or "decode" the Davinci Code.
Posted by Ted Galacci (Member # 3254) on :
So the concensus this is a lamprey like attempt to sell books?
If this suit does succeed, it will be a tectonic disaster for publishing.
Posted by Elan (Member # 2442) on :
I was just visiting with a friend, and we both agreed that we had heard the theory presented in the DaVinci Code (and Holy Blood, Holy Grail) long before we read DaVinci Code. Oddly enough, neither of us has ever read HBHG. So obviously SOMEone else has written similar articles/books with that same set of "ideas and themes" that Dan Brown is being sued over. Yet I don't recall any of THEM being sued.
Heck, the Gnostic Gospels and the Nag Hammandi library cite the presence of the Divine Feminine in Jesus' ministry, and they were written centuries before HBHG... I wonder if someone might wonder if the authors of HBHG themselves, lifted "ideas and themes" from other published works and should be sued, too.
I'll bet all this publicity makes a lot of book sales, AND gives the movie (due out in May) a big boost.
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :
Well it would be bigger news for the Movie IMO if it was being played out in an American court. It'll get some press since its in the UK but not as much.
I say that because the British don't have the same system of courts as the US does so you don't see quite the same posturing by lawyers in front of TV cameras either inside or outside the courtroom.
Posted by tchernabyelo (Member # 2651) on :
I remember reading HBHG many years ago (not that long after it came out). I haven't read The Da Vinci Code, because almost everyone who reviews it says that it's utterly dire, and it usually depresses me when I read dire novels.
As far as I can tell, however, HBHG was used as a "sourcebook" by Brown, rather than going to the original sources its authors used (and abused). That's generally regarded as lazy in serious non-fiction circles, but it's also very common. As HBHG is presented as non-fiction, the grounds for the lawsuit appear very shaky; you can't publish (and make a lot of money from) an "expose" of the "truth" and then whine that you retain copyright on the ideas you've expressed.
Very oddly, the suit is against Random House, the UK publishers of The Da Vinci Code, who also publish HBHG - and indeed have produced a new edition precisely to capitalise on all the fuss about the Da Vinci Code and the forthcoming movie. One could certainly theorise that it will be settled out of court, amicably, once the publicity has died down and the book sales are up.
There seems to be ample evidence that Dan Brown is guilty of many things (including stupidity - I understand one of his villains is given a name that's an anagram of the HBHG authors, which is just plain dumb), but plagiarising an avowed "non-fiction" work isn't likely to be judged as being one of them.
Posted by Keeley (Member # 2088) on :
So, the authors of HBHG are suing the publishing house that publishes their book for publishing a book that's based on the research in HBHG?
Isn't that biting the hand that feeds you?
Maybe it's a conspiracy by the publishing house itself to create more publicity (though I must admit that suing yourself for the sake of publicity sounds like something Dale Gribble from King of the Hill would do).
Posted by Matt Lust (Member # 3031) on :
but I bet that Dan Brown's more than beaten his advance in royalties while HBHG authors probally just barely beat their advance and still aren't seeing the success.
HBHG is distinctly scholarly while the "cracking" and "decoding" books are little more than better bound tabliods
Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :
As I recall, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" was a bestseller, too, though probably not the phenomenon that "The DaVinci Code" was and (right now) is.
As for the idea that the publishing house is suing itself...it's the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail," who are suing. And, surely, authors can be ripped off by a publisher, even at that level...
