karohemd | (no subject)

I'd say very sensible - Both books are getting more publicity and corresponding sales. I predict a quiet out of court settlement about 12 hours before a judgement. Now, you couldn't accuse me of cynicism could you? ;@)

Did you catch Stephen Fry' little outburst against Mr Brown's offering on QI a few months back? He described it as, "Unremitting arse-gravy!" :@)

I think I randomly saw that, yes. :o) However, I don't think there could be any remit in arse-gravy in any case...

Why not sue Garth Enniss as well? He explored the theory about the holy bloodline still being around today in the Preacher comics. It's not exactly an original idea is it?!

Exactly. They're just jealous. Besides, their theory was hardly based on scientific fact, either, considering that it's not been proven that Jesus as such actually lived.

thinking about it... wasn't Preacher first published before their book came out? If so Garth could sue their sorry arses for the same thing.

There has to have been a theory around about the son of jesus way before they wrote their book... otherwise they wouldn't have anything to base their work off.

Dan Brown has actually said that he drew heavily on Holy Blood & Holy grail in his writing - which is shooting yourself in the foot, rather.
No point sueing Garth Ennis because he didn't make $45,000,000 last year.

... they spent some time and effort researching their book, and there's a little thing called copyright.

If Dan Brown read their book, took their research and wrote a "derivative work" (that's a specific term from copyright law) whether "fiction" or not then his book's copyright belongs to them. (As I understand US copyright law and IANAL).

In law you can't just steal other people's work, file off the serial numbers and add a small amount of your own and expect to keep the money you make off it (your opinion may of course differ). If you sample someone else's track, you'd better make sure you've got the clearance or else you'll end up like the Verve & the Rolling Stones (as I recall, all the royalties for Bittersweet Sympathy goes to the Allan Klein (an early Stones publisher who has the rights to songs pre-69) because the sample wasn't cleared first).

The Merovingian heresay and the Knights Templar stuff has been around for ages, but the two authors condensed it down, did various bits of research and produced their theory of what it was all about. Dan Brown, allegedly, has taken their theory lock, stock and barrel and added a murder mystery to it.

It will be up to the courts to decide if there is enough copyright infringement, or for Mr.Brown, his agents and publishers to decide if they want to settle out of court.

But the allegations of DB ripping off that particular book have been around as long as the book has (certainly I heard them ages ago), and if it wasn't worth suing before, well it is now.

Well, I know that you can't simply take someone's theory and write a book on it.

I do think, though, that theirs isn't an exclusive theory (as many of those are).
I don't know their book so can't tell how much of it went into the DVC, I admit that.

For me it's similar to White Wolf wanting to sue Sony for Underworld.

... and my biggest problem is I don't know how much of their book was an original compilation and interpretation of existing data, and how much of that had been pulled together before.

If I spent ages going through lots of books on Egyptology and came up with a theory about pyramids, seasons, sunrise times etc. then a lot of it would have been scattered through all the other books but perhaps I'd have come up with a new insight (even if all the evidence was around before). If someone then made a film and it used the same stuff I had, it would be hard to prove whether they had stolen my work or whether they'd used the same source material and came to the same conclusions. That's pretty much the same as here.

I don't know the White Wolf stuff well enough to know whether there was mor e than a passing resemblance with Underworld, but I assume from your statement that Sony won? In the original complaint, White Wolf & Nancy Collins claimed "over 60 points of unique similarity between Underworld and their work". However after five minutes of web searching, I can't find any subsequent update to that case ... did it get dropped? Is it still ongoing? Most of the individual points that I can find referenced (e.g. fast vampires, strong vampires etc.) are part of the standard vampire mythos, but (unless you steal actual character names) it's always hard to identify plagiarism/copyright theft aside from seeing how many points of similarity there are with the alleged source and how many there are with other non-copyright documents (stealing from many people is no better, but much harder to prove!)

See my reply to Ozzy below on the WW stuff.

That's exactly the sort of information I was looking for. Cheers!

Please assume that everything I say is complete hearsay - it's what I've put together from third hand rumours and reading between the lines. I hear there was an NDA involved, so you'll never get a straight answer from anyone involved though. I might be utterly wrong.

... and to my memory, the stuff in their book was used as is in the DVC (though obviously mostly as background stuff, and there was nothing to do with the Mona Lisa).

Dan Brown did add a lot on top, but it's that sample thing again ... after all how much of a tune/lyric do you have to use before you have to pay royalties? According to one thing I just read, a single line out of a song appears to be enough.
George Michael had to turn over some of his royalties on his song "Waiting For That Day" because he quoted the Stones lyric "You Can't Always Get What You Want." Janet Jackson had to give up part of her copyright for "What'll I Do" for using the "Satisfaction" refrain "Hey hey hey, that's what I say."
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1425045/19971008/story.jhtml

See

davywavy's comment below/above.

Most of the points in that list were ridiculous as you could well say that both Underworld and WW backgrounds drew ideas from the same myths/folk stories/literary stereotypes.

The film did look like a bunch of LARPers who actually had money to blow on a budget got together. Assigning WW archetypes was one of the most fun bits watching it.

Sony paid WW a large sum in out-of-court settlement for Underworld after WW produced a video of one of the scriptwriters saying that they'd been heavily influenced by WW's work. In the same way, Dan Brown said he'd used a lot of HB&HG in Da Vinci Code. He may be screwed.

Thing is, given that HB & HG is presented as a work of historical research, surely Brown is just supporting that research by writing a book that assumes their research is correct?

If they're arguing that he ripped off their ideas, aren't they arguing that their book's not true? 'Cos if their book is true, all he's done is written a fictionalized version of real historical events, and you can't claim history for yourself. OTOH if HB & HG is complete bollocks (which seems, on the face of it, more likely) I suppose they might have a case....

*nods*
That's another way of looking at it. Let's see what happens.

If I wrote a book about the Kennedy assassination, a totally factual book, and someone made a film using my research, you bet I'd want my money.

If I was Jim Lovell and I wrote a book about Apollo 13, and someone made a film based on what was in my book, ditto.

If I'm Simon Schama and someone made a TV series based on one of my books, I'd expect to be getting rich from it.

No, Brown writing a book by stealing someone else's work and presenting it as his own is copyright theft. (If indeed that's what happened, which is still debatable).

You can't claim history for yourself, but anything you write has automatic copyright, plus of course this stuff has an actual copyright date etc.

And it may or may not be important that the people that are being sued are Random House (not Dan Brown) who are the publishers of *both* Dan Brown *and* HB & HG!

And yes, I think HB & HG is based on a false premise, but that doesn't mean that people through history haven't believed it and haven't done some of the things claimed in the book. After all, there are a lot of people that would claim the bible is total fiction ...

So should assorted Napoleonic historians sue Bernard Cornwell for writing the Sharpe books based on their research? Should cops and forensic scientists and criminals sue thriller writers for basing their stories on how real criminals behave?

Reading factual (or supposedly factual) books about what you write about is just doing your research; it's not stealing people's work. Hell, New Scientist would be suing every hard SF story written in the past 20 years or so if this case had any merit.

There's no copyright on ideas. If Brown copied HB & HG word for word, yeah, they have a strong case. Otherwise as with any other IP suit it's really down to who can afford the biggest lawyers, and what Baigent & Leigh actually wnat out of the case in the first place.

If one of them came up with this line about some sharp shooter called Sharpe then yes, they should.
:)

See below.
The case is not about that- but the defense is paying for media types to convince you this is what it is supposed to be about.

I see they got their cash out of it.

The character Sharpe is protected under IP law (dunno if he's been registered as a trademark, off-hand, but he would almost certainly be considered an unregistered trademark). The characters "Jesus Christ," "Mary Magdalene," "assorted Merovingians" etc., are clearly in the public domain.

To my mind, the Holy Blood lot shot themselves in the foot by claiming their turgid old potboiler was a serious piece of historical research. Had they published it as fiction, they'd have a stronger case now....

Yes I am serious.
As I said- see below for the reasons why... but to recap...
They are NOT taking Dan Brown to court.
They are taking their publisher to court.
They are NOT saying Brown 'stole their idea'.
Far from it.

They are saying the publisher ignored their body of evidence- the argument of the Holy Blood.
Remember- HBHG is NOT at any point an attempt to discover something new. All the way through it the three authors keep saying 'This fact was said here, this fact said there, this historical data confirmed by this etc'.
What they did was bring a whole series of threads together.
Lest we forget- much of the work done on HBHG was paid for by the BBC (the book is the by-product of two VERY succesful TV documentraies done by the authors for the BBC back in the 70's).

They never claimed it was ever 'their idea'- only that they did more work on it.

The publishers are earning MUCHO cash because they have copyrighted the very words 'Da Vinci Code' and are generating vast revenues out of this.
Dan Brown gets a cut- he wrote the book- ace.
But every documentary on 'Debunking the Da Vinci Code', every book which purports to reveal the 'Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code' etc. MUST pay Random House some money.
Which they pocket and give Dan Brown a share. You think he made his moneys on book SALES?
nope.
Copyright. It is the INDUSTRY generated by the novel that has made him rich.

The authors of HBHG are basically saying...
"Hang on a mo'! We spent ten years trawling through some pretty obscure history books to present an idea, and all these books and TV shows are coming up, using OUR evidence, debating OUR work- which is cool... and YOU (random house) are getting millions for this and not giving us a penny?"

That's the argument.
They are NOT after Dan Brown.

They are after Random House- who are, basically, the parsasites here- a bunch of soul sucking shitbags really.

Random House is using their work and refusing to give 'em a penny (apart from re-publishing their book, and THEN we note that NOBODY is doing a 'Debunking the Holy Blood and the Holy grail' book as I think you'll find Random House CANNOT get money from that as Random House don't own the copyright).
The boys are after what belongs to them.
Their cut.

So, yes, they have a case. And I fear that they will lose.
I fear that you get a bunch of shits like Random House who are LYING to get their argument ignored (for example- why do we feel this is all about copyrighting people like Jesus?- RH publicity; where did the talk that the movie of the film may not be released come from? RH publicity... The idea that this will 'open the floodgates' to other law suits? You guess it- people PAID by Random House to lie on air).

And I mean the word LIE.

(sigh)
I just hope our courts will ignore pushy American corperations and go with the law.
They did so to the WWF, doing so to random House will result I hope in Random House bleeding out of their ass.
Greedy buggers!

... but then that's true of just about anything ... there are very few truly new ideas around. If you could copyright/patent/trademark anything then there would be only one love story, only one blues song (rather than it sounding like there's only one blues song!), every car manufacturer except one would be banned from using the steering wheel or the brake pedal, only Xerox (or someone) would be allowed to have a mouse on their computer etc.

There are only twelve notes in an octave (assuming no micro-tonal or alternate scales) and only so many ways of selecting them (and many of those sound bad) so how can you tell when someone has "stolen" your tune? That's why there are courts and vaguely worded laws ... to eventually let someone decide (a judge, a jury, someone) if two things are similar enough.

I've never read the 1994 story that WW&N alledge was ripped-off, I don't know if you have ... but if someone at Sony admits to being influenced by the WW games then that's not a good thing for Sony's case.

It's one of the reasons that people like JK Rowling don't read fan fiction or ideas sent in in the post/email ... if someone can claim that an idea they showed her appeared in a subsequent book, she lays herself open to a legal case ...

... but you're right, the claims I've read so far, for each individual point of similarity, could as easily be true of Buffy as for Underworld

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!
I'd assumed that he had their permission to use their ~~work of fiction~~ 'facts.'
This amuses me even more, as he was just using it as 'fact' for his fiction!
(Cannot blame him for that, desu-nai?)

Heh, indeed. :o)

Should be interesting to follow. I haven't read these books so can't really comment. These kinds of theories have been around for a while so it will be hard to see which particular threads are involved.

I don't see it necessarily as cashing in, though. It costs money to go to court and isn't worth it in most cases. If DB has made millions then there might be justification if there is a genuine case to be made.

If the book hadn't been a success, I doubt they'd have sued, though.

That's what I mean; is it worth the possible financial loss in bringing the case compared to possible gains if you win. I meant to differentiate between cashing in on a slight chance and really having a good case and just waiting for it to be worth the risk.

I believe that copyright law specifies a 17% difference between original item and the one that has 'copied' it, with various exceptions for fair use and parody.

I think the point is, they wouldn't start a court case if they didn't seriously belive their copyright has been infringed - its an awful lot of money to spend on the chance you'll 'get away with it'. If it can be proved that Brown did abuse the earlier work, I heartily endorse him being fleeced.

*sigh* *goes and gets hated copy of said piece of shiterature*

Ahem. Chapter 60. After Langdon has laboriously explained the significance of various paintings, the Church of Saint-Sulpice, the Prieure de Sion, sacred geometry, and a large number of other issues dealt with by Baigent and Leigh for a BBC series called Chronicle in 1982...

"...HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL - the acclaimed international bestseller... 'this caused quit a stir back in the nineteen eighties'..."

All this furore could have been avoided by Brown, a soi-disant academic, doing something as simple as a bibliography. Something which I would have thought would appeal to his more-erudite-than-thou pseud nature, despite his oeuvre being fiction. Or perhaps because Cornwell and Crichton do it, he believes it beneath him?

I fucking hate Dan Brown. He's right up there on my list with Ruth Kelly and Delia Smith. I own a copy of the shiterature because I bought it to see what all the fuss was about and NOW IT JUST WON'T BURN.

never read it, couldn't be arsed :)

Yeah, the thought of a bibliography occured to me, too.

Wow, on par with Delia Smith? That's some serious hating...

Bottom line:
The theories put forward in the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail and when they began...
The Templers Found 'something' below the temple/Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem-
Old. First allegeded back in the 1300's. Mostly led to allegations they worshipped 'Bahomet' and icon found below the Temple.
Jesus was Married-
OLDER. As old as the Gospels. Gospel of John... "He is the birdegroom..."
As as wise man once said- it does not say jesus was married in the Bible.
neither does it say he WASN'T married!!!
Jesus had kids-
ROUGHLY the same time. The Barabbus/ Bar Rabbi/ Jesus Jr theory I cannot place right now, but not theirs...
Mary Magdelene fled to the south of France-
Traditions date back maybe a 1000 years.
jesus was a twin-
See above.
The Merovigian Kings were descedants of Jesus-
Mostly new (sih)

And so on.
Holy Blood was never an attempt bto say this is new.
It was three men discovering a story, much of which was written across in many differing books and tried to bring them all together.
The idea of placing them all together in one book- that was uniquely theirs!

The case works like this:
They NEVER tried to assert it was all their own work. They supplied a Bibliography and referanced everyone whose ideas they were using.
They were openly trying to bring together differing theorists and experts opinions (history dating back 2000 years) into one volume.
They are defending the "the whole architecture of research" they did.

Why sue Brown?
They are NOT.
They are suing their publisher?
Why?

Question- does ANYONE think Dan Brown has made his money just on sales of his book?
How many 'Guides to the Da Vinci' code have been published?
How many TV shows about the De Vinci code have been made?
How much attention the Da Vinci code has generated.

now if YOU want to write a book on the Da Vinci code- go ahead. And give a large sum to the publishers of the original book... because *ta-da* the very words Da Vinci Code is copyright to the publishers.
You wrote a book ATTACKINg Da Vinci Code, have that name in the title they get a cut!
And they are giving this money to brown.

And the law suit is, two out of the three original authors going...
"Oi! Without us, Brown and YOU would not be making this money- so howsabout OUR cut!"

hence why they sue the publishers.

The publisher will hopefully have to pay out.
brown will have to pay to them their due deseerts.
No, the movie will NOt be effected-0 that is a lie published by the publishers publicity machine.

The authords of the Holy Blood worked hard and did well out of it.
When the Da Vinci Ciode came out they did nothing. They mostly didn't care.
And THEN came the royalty monies... and they were being cut out by a greedy publisher.

Please note:
Conan Chitman, a copyright specialist for Mishcon de Reya solicitors, said the case could have wide-ranging implications.
"This case, if it goes in favour of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, could open a floodgate of litigation for people who have had their ideas, as they see it, stolen by more successful people," he said.

THIS IS A LIE!!!!!
Chitman is part of the DEFENSE- under pay to say just that.
Lie, lie, BIG sodding lie.

Random House tried to steal from writers.

I hope they goddamn fine them so hard they bleed out of their ass!

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Because ...

Re: Because ...

I've read both ...

Re: I've read both ...

Thanks!

Re: Thanks!

oh ...

Re: I've read both ...

Re: Because ...

Re: Because ...

Re: Because ...

Are you serious?

Re: Are you serious?

Re: Are you serious?

Re: Are you serious?

Re: Are you serious?

individual points are ridiculous ...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject