Full Version: Dan Brown Plagiarism Trial
I assume most people have heard about the plagiarism lawsuit against Dan Brown, author of “The DaVinci Code” by the authors of another book, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. If not, here is a snippet.
I have a problem with this lawsuit. Having read both books, I am puzzled how an author can be sued for taking an idea from a historic thesis (and a rather turgid, hard-to-read one at that) and using it in a fictional manner. Isn’t that what a good thriller writer does? If this case has merit, then Tom Clancy should be broke and in jail!
HBHG was written in 1982. I saw a news story on CBS about a Frenchman (I think he was French) who convinced several people he was a descendant of Jesus and Mary M., and this was several years ago. The theme explored by HBHG is 20+ years old. DaVinci Code has been out for several years. Only now, when a blockbuster movie with A list stars is on the verge of release do the authors of HBHG file a lawsuit. Hoping to cash in on the box office, perhaps?
Do the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have a legitimate plagiarism beef? Or is it opportunism with the movie nearing release?
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
QUOTE
Author Dan Brown said he was ``shocked'' by accusations that he stole the ideas for his best- selling ``The Da Vinci Code'' novel from another book, saying a number of authors had written about similar religious themes.
Brown's publisher, Random House Inc., is being sued for copyright infringement in Britain by the authors of a non-fiction book published more than 20 years earlier, ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.'' Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh claim Brown used a thriller plot to capitalize on their theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and sired a royal dynasty. Bloomberg
Brown's publisher, Random House Inc., is being sued for copyright infringement in Britain by the authors of a non-fiction book published more than 20 years earlier, ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.'' Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh claim Brown used a thriller plot to capitalize on their theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and sired a royal dynasty. Bloomberg
I have a problem with this lawsuit. Having read both books, I am puzzled how an author can be sued for taking an idea from a historic thesis (and a rather turgid, hard-to-read one at that) and using it in a fictional manner. Isn’t that what a good thriller writer does? If this case has merit, then Tom Clancy should be broke and in jail!
HBHG was written in 1982. I saw a news story on CBS about a Frenchman (I think he was French) who convinced several people he was a descendant of Jesus and Mary M., and this was several years ago. The theme explored by HBHG is 20+ years old. DaVinci Code has been out for several years. Only now, when a blockbuster movie with A list stars is on the verge of release do the authors of HBHG file a lawsuit. Hoping to cash in on the box office, perhaps?
Do the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have a legitimate plagiarism beef? Or is it opportunism with the movie nearing release?
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
Do the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have a legitimate plagiarism beef? Or is it opportunism with the movie nearing release?If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
The Slate had a good write up about this a few days ago. Holy Grail Wars
Basically it boils down to the fact that the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claimed that they were writing the truth--in other words, it was a history book.
Historical events are not copyrightable. Only the exact words (or something very similar) would constitute plagiarism on the part of Brown.
It's like a WW2 historian claiming that an author's book on the Last Days of Hitler was plagiarism. History doesn't work that way. Historical events are not property and thus the authors of Holy Blood have no leg to stand on.
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
The Slate had a good write up about this a few days ago. Holy Grail Wars
Basically it boils down to the fact that the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claimed that they were writing the truth--in other words, it was a history book.
Historical events are not copyrightable. Only the exact words (or something very similar) would constitute plagiarism on the part of Brown.
It's like a WW2 historian claiming that an author's book on the Last Days of Hitler was plagiarism. History doesn't work that way. Historical events are not property and thus the authors of Holy Blood have no leg to stand on.
Do the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have a legitimate plagiarism beef? Or is it opportunism with the movie nearing release?
No I don't think that the HBHG authors have much of a case. I have read just enough Dan Brown to have decided I don't like his writing style much, and I dipped in an out of HBHG as a teen when my dad bought it, and didn't much like its style either. I don't think it matters in how po-faced a manner you present bunkum - it's still bunkum.
Anyway, I think that, since Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has topped the best-seller lists (as HBGB did in its day, mystifyingly) for several years now, this has nothing to do with legitimate plagiarism concerns, and is everything to do with trying to chisel into the movie rights. And if that fails, I'll bet that the acres of publicity this case is garnering around the world will sell more than a few copies of HBGB as people revisit it to see what the fuss is about.
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
I haven't really read either of them, no, but it seems to me that the central conceit of Brown's book isn't so much the theory itself anyway as the thriller element brought in by the supposed conspiracy to cover it up. So even if he did steal the idea - which seems implausible since several other sources seem to have come up with broadly the same sort of idea (including Martin Scorcese's screenwriters for Last Temptation of Christ) - it seems to me that he's expanded on it considerably.
Indeed, given Brown's admission in cuort that he didn't finish reading HBHB because he found it too hard to read, I daresay he was more likely to have picked up the idea that Jesus might have had kids (from which living descendants isn't much of a leap) from the movie I mentioned than from any book.
Aside: I have to say that the fact that HBHG is "too hard" for Dan brown to read speaks more about his qualities as an author than any review. It's not a gripping read, for sure, but we aren't talking Umberto Eco or James Joyce here, or even A Brief History of Time.
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
Only if it succeeds. I hope that it doesn't, indeed, I hope that the judge makes some suitable dismissive comments about the timing of the suit in his final judgement.
If by some strange chance it does succeed, heaven forbid, it will be a black day for artistic freedom. And also for the British justice system.
It's already bad enough that our libel laws mean that the likes of Tom Cruise's appearance in a satirical cartoon show (South Park) and his mere reputation for litigiousness can frighten British TV networks into not showing it (the one about him being in the (literal) closet and Scientology being a scam, at least half of which is uncontroversial to the majority of non-Scientologists). If this case sets a bad precedent, most fictional publishers in the UK (surely one of the most active sources of new material in literature, theatre, TV and cinema - certainly disproportionate to our size) could be forgiven for shutting up shop.
No I don't think that the HBHG authors have much of a case. I have read just enough Dan Brown to have decided I don't like his writing style much, and I dipped in an out of HBHG as a teen when my dad bought it, and didn't much like its style either. I don't think it matters in how po-faced a manner you present bunkum - it's still bunkum.
Anyway, I think that, since Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code has topped the best-seller lists (as HBGB did in its day, mystifyingly) for several years now, this has nothing to do with legitimate plagiarism concerns, and is everything to do with trying to chisel into the movie rights. And if that fails, I'll bet that the acres of publicity this case is garnering around the world will sell more than a few copies of HBGB as people revisit it to see what the fuss is about.
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
I haven't really read either of them, no, but it seems to me that the central conceit of Brown's book isn't so much the theory itself anyway as the thriller element brought in by the supposed conspiracy to cover it up. So even if he did steal the idea - which seems implausible since several other sources seem to have come up with broadly the same sort of idea (including Martin Scorcese's screenwriters for Last Temptation of Christ) - it seems to me that he's expanded on it considerably.
Indeed, given Brown's admission in cuort that he didn't finish reading HBHB because he found it too hard to read, I daresay he was more likely to have picked up the idea that Jesus might have had kids (from which living descendants isn't much of a leap) from the movie I mentioned than from any book.
Aside: I have to say that the fact that HBHG is "too hard" for Dan brown to read speaks more about his qualities as an author than any review. It's not a gripping read, for sure, but we aren't talking Umberto Eco or James Joyce here, or even A Brief History of Time.
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
Only if it succeeds. I hope that it doesn't, indeed, I hope that the judge makes some suitable dismissive comments about the timing of the suit in his final judgement.
If by some strange chance it does succeed, heaven forbid, it will be a black day for artistic freedom. And also for the British justice system.
It's already bad enough that our libel laws mean that the likes of Tom Cruise's appearance in a satirical cartoon show (South Park) and his mere reputation for litigiousness can frighten British TV networks into not showing it (the one about him being in the (literal) closet and Scientology being a scam, at least half of which is uncontroversial to the majority of non-Scientologists). If this case sets a bad precedent, most fictional publishers in the UK (surely one of the most active sources of new material in literature, theatre, TV and cinema - certainly disproportionate to our size) could be forgiven for shutting up shop.
Do the authors of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have a legitimate plagiarism beef? Or is it opportunism with the movie nearing release?
It's true that ideas cannot be copyrighted, nor can arguments or conclusions. The expression of ideas, arguments and conclusions are copyrightable. So, the burden of proof is on the authors of HBHG. Did Brown copy sentences or paraphrase paragraphs badly, meaning that just a few words were changed? I think if this can be demonstrated, there might be a case.
I think fiction writers generally don't stick research sentences or paragraphs in their creations. At least that's how I work, being on the seventh revision of my first fiction attempt. My research notes are separate, really boring and way the hell back there in the dim initial gestation period.
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
I haven't read either book, but I have read similar historical takes. Lots of authors have chased the ideas, but I bet none of them have sold 36 million copies. We're talking serious royalty money here.
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
The plaintiffs have admitted that all they want is a piece of the action. I think any highly successful book will attract a number of jackals and parasites. My hope is that the judge sees their motivation and slaps them with heavy court costs, fines or whatever the justice system allows.
I don't think this will impact fiction writers. From what I've seen, fiction writers take a great deal of pride in their art. They create characters from composites of real people to lend credibility and plotlines from real life, also composites unless based on an actual incident, like In Cold Blood. The use of language is a highly personal thing, as unique to the author as fingerprints, so it has to be an extremely careless artist who lifts the words of someone else, or a fraud. Frauds are out there.
So, did Jesus actually survive and raise a family in France? Hey, prove that and the foundation of Christianity crumbles. I don't think this has been proven. The plotline of the DaVinci Code can be considered fiction too as a result.
Just a side thought. With the publication of Misquoting Jesus, a part of Christianity has revealed itself at Amazon. Some people believe because of the cool things that Jesus taught. I don't think that disproving the Ascension will change what these kinds of believers believe. However, the idea of Christianity then gets stretched pretty thin. Ah well, so be it, eh?
It's true that ideas cannot be copyrighted, nor can arguments or conclusions. The expression of ideas, arguments and conclusions are copyrightable. So, the burden of proof is on the authors of HBHG. Did Brown copy sentences or paraphrase paragraphs badly, meaning that just a few words were changed? I think if this can be demonstrated, there might be a case.
I think fiction writers generally don't stick research sentences or paragraphs in their creations. At least that's how I work, being on the seventh revision of my first fiction attempt. My research notes are separate, really boring and way the hell back there in the dim initial gestation period.
If you have read the books, do you believe Dan Brown is guilty of plagiarism?
I haven't read either book, but I have read similar historical takes. Lots of authors have chased the ideas, but I bet none of them have sold 36 million copies. We're talking serious royalty money here.
All fiction takes its inspiration from truth. Does this lawsuit set a dangerous precedent for authors of fiction?
The plaintiffs have admitted that all they want is a piece of the action. I think any highly successful book will attract a number of jackals and parasites. My hope is that the judge sees their motivation and slaps them with heavy court costs, fines or whatever the justice system allows.
I don't think this will impact fiction writers. From what I've seen, fiction writers take a great deal of pride in their art. They create characters from composites of real people to lend credibility and plotlines from real life, also composites unless based on an actual incident, like In Cold Blood. The use of language is a highly personal thing, as unique to the author as fingerprints, so it has to be an extremely careless artist who lifts the words of someone else, or a fraud. Frauds are out there.
So, did Jesus actually survive and raise a family in France? Hey, prove that and the foundation of Christianity crumbles. I don't think this has been proven. The plotline of the DaVinci Code can be considered fiction too as a result.
Just a side thought. With the publication of Misquoting Jesus, a part of Christianity has revealed itself at Amazon. Some people believe because of the cool things that Jesus taught. I don't think that disproving the Ascension will change what these kinds of believers believe. However, the idea of Christianity then gets stretched pretty thin. Ah well, so be it, eh?
The suit against Brown has been dismissed. link
The plaintiffs may be responsible for paying the estimated $1.75 million in legal bills associated with the case. I wonder if a few more book sales of HBHG were worth it?
The plaintiffs may be responsible for paying the estimated $1.75 million in legal bills associated with the case. I wonder if a few more book sales of HBHG were worth it?
Yeah, big surprise. I think it was done only for publicity purposes for the movie. From that perspective, the price tag isn't so high, and I bet the nonficiton authors won't have to foot the bill. Wonder is someone is writing a thick, juicy expose'?
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.