From BBC News:
Da Vinci Code ‘copied book ideas’
A claim that Dan Brown’s bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code copied the ideas of two other authors has gone before London’s High Court.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh say Mr Brown stole “the whole architecture” of research that went into their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
Both books contain the idea Jesus had a child. They are suing publisher Random House, which denies the allegation.
Mr Brown attended the court on Monday as a judge heard initial submissions.
‘Intellectual theft’
….Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh’s non-fiction best-seller The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (HBHG) was also published by Random House.
It dealt with theories that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and that their blood line continued to the present day.
Their lawyer Jonathan James told the court: “Dan Brown copied from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and therefore the publication of the result by the defendant is in infringement of the copyright of my client in the United Kingdom.”
In an earlier post, I discussed my opinion of plagiarism. I provided a link to the list George Polti came up with 36 dramatic situations on which every novel is based upon. With this in mind, is “stealing” intellectual property even possible? The idea of Jesus the Christ having children is not a new one. So whose intellectual property is it? Should the Pope be the one in the lawsuit? Afterall, as representative of one of the largest Christian religions, wouldn’t he also represent Christ’s intellectual property?
I don’t know the details of this case nor have I read any of the books. But if the plot in question is the concept of Jesus having children, then I think the case is a waste of energy. If he used other aspects of their plot, then, well, maybe it’s not a waste.
I don’t like the idea of the sue-ability of alleged intellectual property. How can a court decide who owned a thought first? In that case, all writers are screwed.
Opinions? Thoughts?
First of all, the authors of the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail are suing the publisher, not Brown. Second, it’s the same publisher that published their book. Third, their book is nonfiction and is a documentation of the research they did on the subject, which they claim is based on historical fact. Forth, Brown actually cites Holy Blood, Holy Grail in his fictional book.
I don’t see how a fictional book is plagerism of a nonfictional book especially when the author gives credit to the earlier book for the information gained from their research. Plus, if it is in fact historical fact then how can it be plagerism?
I really think they’re just in it for the publicity and money.
BTW, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is very informative but it’s the most boring book I ever read and I read it years ago.
Exactly!
I have heard of folks believing that Da Vinci Code is a NON-fiction. Oy.
If he cites them in his fiction, then how has it gotten this far?
Arrgh!
Personally, I think if they win, they have to change their book’s genre to fiction. That’ll definitely upset a bunch of conspiracy theorists.