I heard some grumbling about this several months ago, but I thought it was resolved.

I feel strangely divided about the concept of intellectual theft. At what point does something become intellectual theft? When someone else's novel does better commercially than your own even though they're based on the same premise (which is certainly NOT a new one by any means, even back in 1982)? I will also admit that I thought the plot of Brown's work was interesting and provoking, but I didn't much care for his writing and thought the novel was overrated.

I guess I would take these claims more seriously if Brown had used the ideas from an unpublished book written by a friend and then beaten him to the punch by getting his work published first. Maybe I just don't understand the legal concept of intellectual theft.

I think myself that if Dan Brown has written into his book an expert on the whole thing whose name is "Leigh Teabing" and Holy Blood, Holy Grail is written by Leigh and Baigent, then the least he could do is acknowledge that the book (HBHG) is a major source of inspiration. But in the couple of pages of acknowledgement, there is NO mention of Leigh and Baigent's book. And given that Dan Brown makes such a big thing of how well his book was researched, that's something of an omission....

Let's put it this way - if Dan Brown's book had been a "non-fiction" book, he'd be guilty of plagiarism.

...it's most unlikely that the film will be held up. Even if Leigh and Baigent win, the film studios have got very deep pockets - they'll just make a settlement.

I'm rather surprised that they haven't settled this out of court already.

Intellectual theft is a very hard thing to prove. There is no copyright on ideas. Is Ella Minnow Pea an expanded version of The Story of "O"? Is Law and Order just re-packaged headlines? Brown would have had to steal lines word for word. If Leigh and Baigent's work was published, then any author caould take it and tweak it or expand upon it. In academic circles, I believe, it's called, "publish or perish".

PAM

This is an interesting case. Baigent and Leigh allege that "... Dan Brown copied from 'The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail' and therefore the publication of the result by the defendant is in infringement of the copyright of" Baigent and Leigh in the United Kingdom.

Problem is, what IS copyright in the UK? I mean, yes, Brown's basic premise was in Baigent and Leigh's book. But, that being said, are authors not allowed to take the basic concept of someone else's work and turn that into their own work? If Shakespeare was alive today (and if his copyright to Romeo and Juliet was still enforceable), could he sue Leonard Bernstein, Stephen Sondheim, and Arthur Laurents (who wrote the book West Side Story) for copyright infringement?

I would say Shakespeare would have a better case against West Side Story than Baigent and Leigh have against Brown. After all, Baigent and Leigh's book didn't even have a plot! It was a non-fiction book that had a premise that the authors tried to prove through research. The book was about what they found in doing the research and how they stumbled on certain things. Yes, some people would consider that they put two and two together to get 8.35 but is there property in how they put the clues together?

Brown merely took the premise behind Baigent and Leigh's book and spun it into a yarn of arguable (maybe questionable?) literary merit. The question is, does copyright protect the idea behind a work or the expression of that idea? Baigent and Leigh had the idea that X occurred (I'm being deliberately vague to avoid spoilers) and they researched it. Brown took the idea that X occurred and weaved a tale around it. Arguably, all that Baigent and Leigh did was to reinterpret certain historical events to arrive at a certain conclusion. Brown took that conclusion and made a story with it. Should Baigent and Leigh have proprietary rights over that conclusion? Similarly, if someone wrote a historical work that said that Napoleon was poisoned, can that person go after anyone who uses the idea that Napoleon was poisoned in a fictional work?

Perhaps it's not just the conclusion that's at issue. Can one assert proprietary rights on how one interprets facts? If I see that the sun rises every day and I interpret that to mean that tomorrow will rain and publish that interpretation, should I be allowed to stop others from using that interpretation?

Or are they just making a mountain out of a molehill? Perhaps Baigent and Leigh merely want to be "greenmailed" by Brown? (Greenmailing is basically buying off someone -- I think it's from the heady days of the M&A days in the 80s. If you were a target by a corporate raider, you could "greenmail" him by buying back your stocks from the raider at a premium with the hope that the raider will go away)

If there's one thing I've noticed about intellectual property, and especially intellectual property litigation, a case with merit can be optional. It HELPS...

Why do I suspect that the Baigent and Leigh book was languishing on the shelves until Brown's novel. I'm pretty sure they went into additional printing as a result. In addition, they really didn't have a new idea. They took an old one and researched it. Sounds more like greeed to me. And, with apologies to Dynomutt and any other lawyers out there, it also sounds like a greedy lawyer saw it as an opportunity. While lawyers may call it greenmail, the rest of us call it legalized extortion. Cheaper to settle than fight it out.

Chris --

No offense taken. And, in a sense, it IS legalized extortion. Just look that RIM/NTP patent suit in the US. From what I've heard in the news, NTP didn't settle it out of court because RIM was only willing to settle for almost half a billion while NTP apparently wanted a cool billion. (I could be wrong or the news could be wrong .......)

And, unfortunately, human nature being what it is, there will always be those who will take advantage of such opportunities. It's not right but there are those who will say that, if someone else is going to get rich off this (or if someone can make a buck off of this), then why shouldn't I?

Oh, and don't worry -- I don't do litigation. It find it too ..... confrontational. I do what my boss calls "happy law". ;-)

It sounds to me as though the definition of intellectual theft these two are making is "your book made more money than ours did". If this suit wins, no one will be able to publish a novel based on published research. Personally, I was unimpressed by The DaVinci Code, to the extent that I dropped out of a book club which decided to read a second book by this author, but this suit sounds as though it is based on greed mixed with jealousy.

Rosefolly

Sometimes a work of fiction will still have a bibliography at the end. Brown's novel had no such. I can't understand why he did not choose to cover his bases and give credit to Leigh & Baignent' book, specifically by title. IMO, it would have been a wise decision, but then, what do I know?

I caught the end of the news report on this last night, and the reporter stated that Brown named a character in the book "Baignent," perhaps as a homage of sorts. I personally don't remember the characters' names, so I'm taking that on faith. I also thought the report said that both books in question are published by the same publisher.

Mr. Brown could have saved himself a great deal of trouble by acknowledging Leigh and Baignent's book outright. Of course, controversy never hurts when it comes to book sales, whether it's for The DaVinci Code or for Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Just an observation.

Intellectual theft is a very diverse topic and seems to hold such different or varying weight depending on the discipline it is being applied to. In music, musicians and composers rip off melodys, chord structures or ideas from other musical works to rework and develop into a new piece and this is often encouraged. Often this would go on without recognition of the original composer.

As for literature and writing, it is obviously an entirely different game. I haven't read Holy Blood, Holy Grail and therefore don't realise how closely these stories may or may not follow each other, but the fact that the stories are based on a similar premis shouldn't be enough to infringe on copyrights, however; I think Brown should have listed the book as a refrence source material. This, IMO, should cost him, but he shouldn't have to pay royalties.

I'm interested to see how this case ends.

He does mention the book many times, and when I read it I thought he must have had a lot of contact with the author. Rather surprised that he didn't, and that he didn't at least get a nodding ok. So I am not surprised by the lawsuit - and its more for copyright violation. I have no idea what intellectual theft might entail.

I do with more people would read Holy Blood. Its much much better written, the ideas are explained with the complexity that they deserve, and it comes closer to the sources that Brown used. But I don't have any allusions that will happen any time soon.

I'm with Cindy on this -- I hope the case gets more people reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It IS much better written and is a much better exposition of the whole premise. Also, the trials and tribulations of the two researchers make for an interesting story as well, albeit perhaps not as "thrilling" as Brown's fictionalization.

I find the whole thing quite amusing. I had heard about the hype over DVC and my boss was raving about it. When he told me the premise, I told him that it had been done before and I gave him a copy of HBHG for Christmas. Next thing you know, he's raving about HBHG and not DVC! And I think he found HBHG as better written than DVC.

Update: the case is still pending.

Did anyone else watch the recent "Dateline" which interviewed Michael Bainent, who has a new book? It's called "The Jesus Papers" and claims knowledge of secret documents which imply that Jesus did not die in his crucifixion. He supposedly had an arrangement with Pontius Pilate and lived until 45 A.D.The program cited well-known scholars such as Elaine Pagels. A Vatican cover-up was implied. Baignent, who is one of the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" cited an older book by Schonfield, "The Passover Plot" which deals with similar themes.

This should really stir the pot, with the film of the "DaVinci Code" coming out in May. Sounds like a book for conspiracy theory lovers....

I started watching Dateline last night so I could see that interview, but severe storms started coming through and the weatherman took over our television. I wish I hadn't missed that segment.

I can't believe there is anyone who takes this "premise" seriously. There is no intellectual theft because the entire thing is fantasy. Anyone who does the slightest bit of looking into the matter on the internet can easily find a mountain of evidence disproving the bizarre assertions in these books.

Even the fantasy can be stolen, Ginny. I just listened to Kathy Reichs Crossed Bones where one character had a theory that Christ was given a concoction that made him appear dead so the family could get him off the cross and then he lived long enough to die at Masada. There have always been stories and in an open society there always will be.

I'm betting Doris Kearns Goodwin's latest is getting the fine tooth comb treatment by her critics. And yes, I'm one of them. When I read her personal memoir Wait Till Next Year and saw how inelegantly written it was I realized she was a cheat. Don't get me wrong. Her history books are very nice - she is a excellent integrator.

You are right, Chris. I realized that after I clicked. And I agree with you about Doris Kearns Goodwin. But the reviews, that I have read, of her new book about Lincoln have ignored her track record re "borrowing" others' work. It's ok to "integrate" if you acknowledge that that is what you are doing. And cite your sources.

>because the entire thing is fantasy.

Do you mean that entire premise, or the whole idea that what is in the bible may not be what really happened, as Baignent and Pagels suggest with their research on Gnostic and St. Thomas gospels?

And not just the Gospels, Cindy. The Old Testament is considered by many scholars to have been put together from old stories to support the political needs of Josiah. How convenient it was that Deuteronomy was found during the rebuilding of the Temple. Linguistic experts are clear that it was written contemporaneously with the rebuilding.

Oh, when I said the bible I meant both testaments - yeah, I hold to that montage theory as well. A good example is the Ark story - many civilizations of that time and before had a similar tale in their cultural history. I suspect many stories were put in to teach a lesson, not necessarily write history.

BTW, an excellent book about how modern archaeology is changing our look at the bible is View from Nebo, by Amy Dockster Marcus . She is a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and has spent a long time in the Middle East, reseaching, among other things, this very topic. Very interesting and readable.

If you are interested in topics raised in the Da Vinci Code or in the Bible, why not do some reading in non-fiction sources? There are libraries full of scholarly books written over the centuries that talk about these topics. Quite a number are written for the average reader as, of course, these topics have always interested many people. At the very least, check out the internet for detailed rebuttals to the Da Vinci Code. Art historians, for example, are literally laughing at the book. It is sad when people read a novel or watch a TV show or movie and take it for truth. The truth is out there--to quote another TV show--and it's worth finding.

Ginny, for some reason I've always been able to enjoy stories when I didn't believer one word of the premise. Maybe it is all that science fiction I've read. I really know few people who read something like The DaVinci Code and accept it as fact. And I have a hard time understanding why people take it so seriously. I loved the X-Files, too, but really don't hold much with alien abduction.

Yeah, I don't get that either. There's a reason such books are labled fiction. Granted, with historical fiction, you may or may not have historical accuracy but I wouldn't base all of my knowledge of a subject on them.

Well, it looks like Dan Brown got away with it (if he did it in the first place). The verdict just came down and Brown won.

And the judge excoriated the writers of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, saying (from the WaPo article) the novel did not even have a discernable "central theme" that anyone could appropriate."

Note that I picked that last bit up from the article online, but when I did a spell check on this post Google tells me "discernable" is spelled "discernible." So can we conclude that no one at the Washington Post has a spell checker?

The Guardian has a very funny article about it.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Guardian on DVC/HBHG

And correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Eco's Foucault's Pendulum get there first with the Jesus and Mary Magdelene dynasty in any case?

Actually, Eco's book came out in 1988 while The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail came out in 1982.

Here's a link to a wikipedia article on that book. It's actually not a bad article -- it recounts some plotlines (both in books and comic books) that use the same premise as Dan Brown's book.

Here is a link that might be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holy_Blood_and_the_Holy_Grail

My goodness, time flies. Which only raises the question of why they didn't sue Eco. Not enough $Millions involved, perhaps?

The ideas that Eco and others addressed in their books have been around for a long time, and other writers, both fiction and non fiction have taken them on. Its only been lately that the ideas seem to have gained a popular interest, so now more books are out about the subject.

By the way, it looks like there might be more trouble brewing for Dan Brown. A Russian Da Vinci expert from the Hermitage is saying that he'll sue Brown unless he gets an apology and compensation. Apparently, it was his idea that Da Vinci was a theologian and that one of Da Vinci's paintings was an allegory for the church.

Or something like that. ;-)

Had any of you read Yann Martel's essay on how he wrote The Life of Pi? Apparently he got the idea from John Updike review of a Brazillian novel. And it clearly looks like intellectual theft to me. Does it to you?

Here is a link that might be useful: How Martel wrote The Life of Pi

I heard about the book, but wasn't interested enough to read it. But there are many books that are based on an idea of another work. I think the test here is whether or not an author deliberatly took huge sections from a story, plot and characters and made them his own. But just an idea? So I'm not sure its theft in this case.

Getting back to Dan Brown: I heard on NPR today that the judge in this case has handed down a portion of his ruling in code! Evidently, his honor thought he was entitled to get a little fun out of the situation....LOL

Yes, that's quite right. If you feel like doing a bit of codebreaking, have a look.

Here is a link that might be useful: Da Vinci code judge code

One of the definitions of inspiration is, 'an agency, such as a person or work of art, that moves the intellect or emotions or prompts action or invention.
Something, such as a sudden creative act or idea, that is inspired.'

>Actually, Eco's book came out in 1988 while The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail came out in 1982.

Right, and now there a zillion copies of them in the bookstores. They'll sell more now than when they were originally published.