Da Vinci Code and copyright
p2p news / p2pnet: In 1982 Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh wrote the non-fiction The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail in which they theorize Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, had a child, and that their family line survived.
American author Dan Brown wrote The Da Vinci Code thriller which says much the same thing, and now Baigent and Leigh are suing Brown in a case that could change the face of copyright.
Brown is testifying in London’s High Court and on Monday, said he was shocked by the "absurd" allegations, says the Times Online.
"I went out of my way to mention them for being the ones who brought the theory to mainstream attention," he says in a statement. "For them to suggest, as I understand they do, that I have hijacked and exploited their work is simply untrue."
Random House and Brown, "deny the claim, but there is no denying its ramifications if Baigent and Leigh prevail," says the Times.
"In The Holy Blood, Baigent and Leigh argued that Jesus Christ survived crucifixion and escaped to France to sire a dynasty with Mary Magdalene; it is this hypothesis which, they say, forms the overriding ‘architecture’ of their work, only to be ‘lifted’ by Brown.
"In essence, therefore, the claimants are seeking to extend the law of copyright into uncharted waters. The legal maxim that ‘there is no copyright in an idea’ is being tested, just as, in televisual media, there have been successive attempts to claim format rights in reality television shows."
If Baigent and Leigh win, gaining an injunction to bar the use of their material, the May 19 release of the movie The Da Vinci Code could also be blocked.
Also See:
Times Online – Creating stories: do all writers reinterpret and retell?, March 14, 2006
March 14th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
This story only serves to prove the fact that the authors of the original book fabricated out of thin air the conjectures they espouse. Dan Brown is guilty in a way of a sort of plagiarism, but Baigent & Co claimed what they said was fact, so for someone else to paraphrase cannot be copyright.
Imagine ina an alternative universe the Jewish Holocaust had been covered up, and someone wrote an expose of that hidden history. Then someone else came along and incorporated that hidden history into a fictional book. Would the writer of the expose really be so hellbent on copyright, or would he be more concerned with the spread of the truth?
March 14th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
This only proves how ridiculous the legal court system has become., but I am not suprpised.
After what has been done with software patents (also an absurd idea) what can we expect?
I will not be surprised if a connected (to the lawer) judge or jury decides that historical facts belong to a copyright holder.
March 15th, 2006 at 12:39 am
Seriously guys, copyright on NON-fiction ideas?
March 15th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
lol yeah, just try to find any non-fiction in any of the books mentioned. . .
March 15th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Don’t bother. WW II is already claimed as is the Star spangled Banner and Happy Birthday. So is the War on Irak. Michael More owns it. Nothing is any longer in the public domain or free of ownership.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
***So is the War on Irak. Michael More owns it.***
Wrong. Bush, the creator of the war totally owns the rights to Irak and all stories (and oil) related to it. They will come out in his memoirs.
Rumor has it that Bush will sue Moore for malicious and criminal copyright infringement for the purpose of aiding the terrorists, once Bush is out of the White House. RIAA has stated they will support Bush by making their shark toothed “download” lawyers available, in exchange for unamed favors.
March 22nd, 2006 at 10:53 pm