Bingo... my thoughts exactly.
Posted on 10/21/2005 3:27:19 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Friday, 21 October 2005, 16:59 GMT 17:59 UK
Da Vinci publisher in court case
Two authors are launching a High Court action against the publishers of The Da Vinci Code, which they say infringes upon their ideas.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Random House, claiming the bestseller lifts from their 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
A High Court hearing will be held next week, followed by a trial next year.
Random House was unavailable for comment on the claim that Brown stole the idea that Jesus had a child.
A spokeswoman for Baigent and Leigh said the authors had been struck by alleged similarities to their history book.
Recent re-release
She said: "The basis of their case is theft of intellectual property.
"There are huge chunks of The Da Vinci Code which they say is lifted from their book."
The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was recently reissued through Century, part of the Random House group.
It features "cryptically coded parchments, secret societies, the Knights Templar" and links them to "a dynasty of obscure French kings" and the Holy Grail.
It also claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child together.
The Da Vinci Code, derided by critics and the subject of furious religious debate, won best book at this year's British Book Awards.
The novel sees an art historian follow a trail of codes and puzzles to explore claims that Jesus and Mary's bloodline survives to this day.
A film is being made by director Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks.
Baigent and Leigh wrote their book with a third author, Henry Lincoln, who is not taking part in the legal action due to ill-health.
In August, Brown won a court ruling in New York against writer Lewis Perdue, who claimed The Da Vinci Code plagiarised elements of two of his novels, Daughter of God, published in 2000 and 1983's The Da Vinci Legacy.
Perdue sought to block future distribution of the book and forthcoming film, as well as $150m (£84m) in damages, but the judge said any similarity was based on "unprotectable ideas".
As far as this lawsuit -- given that Holy Blood, Holy Grail presented itself as non-fiction, they don't have a leg to stand on.
I read 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' when it came out, and there was nothing original in it. Like the DaVinci Code it was just a rehash of old superstitions and mystic gossip. They cover the same subject, but neither is original.
Unless they can show sentances lifted word for word from their book, they have no case.
Copyright 200 AD, Ignotus the Gnostic.
Yes, but Eco is a much better writer.
So9
I wondered when this was going to come up. I read that book ages ago.
To the contrary I think they have an excellent case and will be paid off in a settlement by the publisher and the movie company. The basis of DaVinci Code is ripped off wholesale from Holy Blood Holy Grail.
(And yes, it is all nonsense).
Bingo... my thoughts exactly.
I don't think anyone gets a copyright on theories. Did Einstein get one on relativity?
Geez, all these stories have been around for centuries. Where's that place (Spain?) that they celebrate when Mary and Mary Magdalene and a servant girl (supposedly Jesus' child) landed? Whatever, I've enjoyed several of Brown's novels and can't wait for the movie.
Read the Da Vinvi Legacy on the recomendation of a friend. Or, I should say tried to read it. The kindest thing to be said for it is that it proved to me that I should try to write that novel I've been thinking of for 30 years, because if this book sold anything will. Silly and amateurish is being kind to it.
Dan Brown sold 20 million copies of his book and snagged a huge movie deal because he's an excellent writer whose books have clever plots and non-stop action. He keeps his readers turning the pages till the very end. Brown's success has less do with the theories he utilizes as plot devices than with the quality of his work.
But of course that doesn't stop envious 3rd-rate authors from entering the lawsuit lottery in the hope that the publisher will decide it's cheaper to pay them off than to go to the trouble of fighting them in court.
If you read a little more, you would find there was nothing original in 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' to be ripped off.
Everything Brown supposedly stole from them he could have gotten from the same sources they stole/borrowed/researched it from.
So9
I hold no brief for either party, but I still say that the Holy Blood guys will get a nice payoff to withdraw their suit and go away.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.