Brown did not copy the Da Vinci Code, lawyer says

Reuters ^ | Feb 28, 2006 | Mike Collett-White

[Revolting cat!]

Sturgeon's Law /prov./ "Ninety percent of everything is crap".

[Revolting cat!]

Is it as bad as Hairy Potty which by my (and others') count averages 7 cliches per page? (I usually pick up each volume at a bookstore, and read the first two pages for the sole pleasure of counting the awful cliches.)

[antiRepublicrat]

And I suspect antiRepublicrat is correct: ideas are not copyrightable.

From the US Copyright Office

"Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: ... Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."

However, certain things aside from straight text are subject to copyright, such as the characters in a book. You can eventually cross a line in character development where you are infringing on the copyright of the author who created the character (yes, all fan fiction you read is infringement, but it's usually not sold so authors don't make a big deal about it, plus suing your fans is not a good idea as the RIAA has learned). He could make a claim that Brown is copying his character development of Jesus, but that's on pretty thin ice IMHO.

That's just my non-lawyer, but well-studied, opinion. This book has already survived two other lawsuits over the basic idea.

OTOH, this is in a UK court, so I can't be that precise. Their copyright law is pretty close to ours in this respect, but I don't know their precedent at all.

[joylyn]

Many years ago Ben Hecht wrote a book about the plotters responsible for the Haymarket riots. It read like non-fiction, but Hecht had invented some composite characters to smooth out the narrative. Later, a screenwriter used Hecht's book as research for a screenplay and included some of these characters, assuming they were real people. As I recall, Hecht won that lawsuit. It's possible that Brown may be vulnerable since the material he used isn't historical fact, but someone's original interpretation of events.

[Froufrou]

I appreciate your sharing. I don't like the idea of writers scamming people, like that guy who wrote "A Million Little Pieces."

[A.A. Cunningham]

I would hasten to point out that even Brown never claimed it to be anything more than a work of FICTION.

Incorrect:

"The secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new." www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html

"I began as a skeptic. As I started researching The Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer." Primetime 3 November 2003

Also, why would a work of genuine fiction need to include the following statement:

"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

[Froufrou]

" It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. "

This will probably save him from the plaigarism charges. Still, AA, there's nothing here that claims to be factual! Secret unveiled does not equal fact. "Whispered for centuries" sounds like nothing more than gossip, to me.

But I made my statement based on what he said on a televised interview, "I never said it was anything more than fiction." He may have become a believer but he hasn't proved a thing. Ask the folks in Vatican City!

[Spirited]

There is balance in the Word. You will recall this but to bring it to remembrance for all of us.

Instances and circumstances where judging is urged/required:
Jhn 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1Cr 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

Criteria for judging “things that pertain to life”:
1Cr 6:2 “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”......on through v5

[Froufrou]

Thank you spirited, but I wonder if you suggest I should trash the book on basis of content alone? I mean, aside from the fact that it's not very well written...?

This would maybe equate with my choice not to view certain movies [X] because I feel they are in poor taste?

[Nihil Obstat]

Well, he sure didn't copy it out of the Bible.

[joebuck]

"I would hasten to point out that even Brown never claimed it to be anything more than a work of FICTION."

Right. It's just fiction and a pretty good story. Geez, people need to lighten up. As a devout Christian I disagreed entirly with Tim LaHaye's interpetation of end times prophecy but I loved the Left Behind books. They weren't that well written, but they were also a great adventure story with a Christian setting. I'm sure they also brought many people to Christ.

[Froufrou]

I have not seen any Harry Potter movies, but it's not because I have heard they're anti-Christian. I tried to read The Hobbit in high school and Fantasy just is not a genre that appeals to me, frankly. I much preferred Siddhartha.