Holy Blood, Holy Grail: Copyright Courtcase

theCzar

This is not a thread for idle Dan Brown bashing/adulating: Please look elsewhere

Just saw a snipet on BBC about an upcoming court case in England in which the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" are suing Dan Brown (no introduction necessary) for plagiarising their work. Without having read "Holy Grail, Holy Blood" (HBHG), its clear even from the synopsis that it forms core of the DaVinci Code story, How Jesus's greatgrandchildren are running around to this day etc. Also, the

baddy (surely the spoiler tags are unecessary but just in case)

english grail expert's name is an pseudo-anagram of the HBHG authors.

I think this case is a bit of a cash in on the name and the new film. I don't believe they have a case (though I can understand their frustration), I think they're just eager to shift a few more copies of their own book. After all, HBHG is supposedly an academic work, so that the alternate history they propose is used in a book is surely no basis for a court case, as it implies they own the rights to the history if they were correct. I'm pretty sure there are precedent cases along the lines of "you can't copyright an idea" anyway. Rest easy DB (on your mountain of cash grumblegrumblegrumble).

Any conflicting opinions? I'm gunning for an argument.

Dades

I believe the HBHG authors are on record as saying that their book is a work of fiction. This is what opened the way for them to take this case.

What they will need to prove was that they made this clear from the publication of the book, and not just a backtrack to allow them to cash in. If it turns out that their book sold under the guise of a non-fiction analysis then they are dead in the water.

That's how I understand it at least.

theCzar

HBHG according to amazon:

Category(ies): Religion & Spirituality , History

Da Vinci Code according to amazon:

Category(ies): Fiction , Crime, Thrillers & Mystery

I think they're in trouble :v:

Sandals

amazon never lie.

elephamt king

theCzar wrote:

I'm pretty sure there are precedent cases along the lines of "you can't copyright an idea" anyway.

Im pretty sure that there is a form of "intellectual patent" which permits the copyright of an idea, whether this has any bearing on literature i'm not too sure.
Also, one of the HBHG authors (i cannot remember who) has gone on record saying that some (quite important) things in HBHG ,most notably the priory of sion, were fictional which means that Dan Brown would indeed be guilty of plageurism (sp?).

tricky D

Da Vinci Code is a cross between HBHG and Foucault's Pendulum. This is so obvious that when I mentioned this to my housemate, he said Foucault's Pendulum before I could get to it. Appears to be some grounds for plagarism but there are very few genuinely original ideas when it comes to novels/books.

theCzar

The Priory of Scion is a hoax, but it wasn't invented by HBHG authors (it was invented by a 19th century french sect), so they can't claim ownership of that. Also, since the hoax revolved around the idea of the Holy Grail actually being the Holy Blood, they can't claim that idea as theirs either. So as far as I can see, Dan Brown can argue he cogged his story from the same source they did.