![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
(no subject)
More people trying to cash in on the Da Vinci Code
How desperate do you have to be to sue Dan Brown for alleged theft of intellectual property, i.e. the crap "theories" he used? Also, they wrote a non-fiction book and Brown has stated repeatedly that his book is a work of fiction. *shakes head*
How desperate do you have to be to sue Dan Brown for alleged theft of intellectual property, i.e. the crap "theories" he used? Also, they wrote a non-fiction book and Brown has stated repeatedly that his book is a work of fiction. *shakes head*
Re: Because ...
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....
Re: Because ...
That's another way of looking at it. Let's see what happens.
Are you serious?
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 ...
Re: Are you serious?
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.
Re: Are you serious?
:)
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.
Re: Are you serious?
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....
Re: Are you 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!