Da Vinci Code Author Sued

riptalon writes "Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code, is being sued in the UK for using ideas from a previous non fiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in his novel. The Bangkok Post states that 'The question the court is facing is whether you can copyright an idea, a conjecture.'"

Comments

Fact? Or Fiction?

[whoever57]

Isn't the problem for the authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" that they claim their book is fact? If it were fiction, then they would probably have a viable copyright claim, but while they claim their book is fact, they have the problem that facts are not generally copyrightable. Ironic really!

Re:Good to know it's not just the USA

[slavemowgli]

Don't be too hard on the lawyers - it's just 99% of them that give the rest a bad name.

you can't copyright historical "facts" can you?

[AxemRed]

However, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is listed as fiction IIRC.

Doesn't this mean that he will have to admit that the content of his book is completely fictional in order to sue Dan Brown for violoating his copyright?

Editors DO SOME WORK

[MountainMan101]

Dan Brown is not being sued.
RandomHouse, the publisher is being sued.

It's funny that they're up in arms

[BitterAndDrunk]

Christians (some) really don't like the DaVinci Code.

I forgot where I heard it, but someone had a fantastic joke about it:
Christians are protesting the DaVinci Code and developing texts refuting it. Apparently they're having difficulty believing that a book can be fiction.

Boy did I mangle that one. Anyway. -1 Overrated for ME!

Re:It's funny that they're up in arms

[Vintermann]

Many take the book's claims seriously, and as far as I understand the author takes "Holy blood, holy grail" as a credible source, believing that those parts of the story (about mary magdalene being the grail etc.) are based in fact. And whether he does or not, I know that many take the book's historical claims seriously, including book reviewers.

I know it may be hard for atheists to believe that there is serious research involved in theology, but if you look at the track record of Baigent and Leigh it should be apparent to anyone that they are immensely disreputable "scholars" trying to make a quick buck. For instance, they published a conspiracy theory called "The dead sea scrolls deception" some years ago, alleging that the slow release of the dead sea scrolls was a result of catholic researchers trying to suppress information that would lead to the collapse of the church. Today, all the scrolls are released, and it's plain to everyone that they don't have any implications for christians. (People reading them looking for scandal would probably be immensely bored).

The entire premise for their conspiracy theory was removed, but that doesn't prevent them from republishing it in order to profit from the brouhaha around the da vinci code.

As for that book, I see it as an anti-catholic conspiracy theory, and I don't get why it's so popular - I can find any number of those on crank.net.

Re:Why is this YRO?

[pla]

Also, portions of the book were plagarized from Leigh's and Baigent's work.

One slight problem - Plaguerism does not equal copyright infringement. It commits an academic offense. Not legal, ethical.

As a writer of fiction, Brown has no obligation to give two shakes of a rat's ass about plaguerism. Now, he might want the world to take his writing a bit more seriously than "mere" fiction, in which case he has only hurt himself (if you can include "written a best seller that spawned a sure-blockbuster" in the definition of "hurt"). But as for legal remedy? As much as I enjoyed HB:HG, I'd have to agree with another poster that Baigent and Leight most likely just want to cash in here.


I have no patience for this untalented loser.

I thought it a fairly cute book. Get over yourself, 'kay? You don't have to read it or like it, just as you don't have to read or like "The Cat In the Hat", either. But you'd look like an idiot criticising the grammar therein.

Re:Hardly "unique".

[hazem]

It's a good movie, and I recommend it to anyone who can look critically at their religion. //spoiler//

Actually, in the movie, he did act on the tempation: to end the suffering and live life as a normal man

(the x-tians love to focus on the idea of Jesus having sex as being so heretical - but that wasn't the actual "tempation")

He got the chance, at the end, however, to see that he had been fooled by Satan and got the chance to re-make the decision to stay on the cross and "die for our sins". The life he lived post-cross, though, may have just been a hallucination.

If you're a Christian and hate the movie for being heretical, I suggest you think about it again. Here, Christ is depicted as being human - and suffering from all the things we all suffer from - including tempation, and the desire to live a "normal life". The story even presents the idea that he had a choice - at the moment of truth. End the pain and live normally. When he finally chooses to return to the cross and live out his "mission", that shows a true sacrifice.

If Jesus is just a god-man, who can easily deny his humanity and desires, how is he like me at all? What kind of an example is that for me? I'm not like that at all. I suffer pain and live with tempations. If my "example" doesn't have these same frailties, then how is he really an example for me at all? So really, I think the movie could serve as quite an affirmation of faith.

Of course, I'm pretty much an athiest now. It takes more than a book and a movie to make me into a believer.

Re:Good, I'm glad the fucker is being sued

[LexNaturalis]

I think it's a shame that many religious people are so violently opposed to the book. As a Christian, I am strongly opposed to the "ideas" in the book, but I read the book and I thoroughly enjoyed it. It was an excellent work of fiction and Dan Brown is an engaging author.

I also happen to own, and am in the process of reading, the book that Dan Brown allegedly ripped off. I think the arguments in that book are weak thus far, but I think that if you start banning books or attempting to censor unpopular ideas, then I believe you prevent any sort of meaningful discourse. Afterall, why should you listen to my beliefs on religion if I refuse to even acknowledge your beliefs?

Unfortunately, ideas like mine are rarely published in the popular media. However, comments like the GP are regularly published. I know many more people in my circle of friends/peers that believe like I do versus those that are crude and make ignorant outbursts.