Da Vinci Code author is accused of plagiarism

[emad]

The Times
By Dalya Alberge, Arts Correspondent



THE author of a thriller that has sold more than 12 million copies is being accused of plagiarising two books published more than 20 years ago. Dan Brown, whose The Da Vinci Code is claimed by the publisher to have become the bestselling hardback adult novel of all time, is facing possible legal action by the authors of a 1982 non-fiction bestseller and a 1983 novel. Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln — whose The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail was condemned by the Roman Catholic Church but continues to draw readers and disciples — are said to be preparing to sue him for alleged breach of copyright of ideas and research. Another author, Lewis Perdue, is threatening to sue Brown for alleged plagiarism, claiming that he borrowed heavily from his novel, The Da Vinci Legacy.

The authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail claimed to have found evidence that the Priory of Sion, a secret society founded in the late 11th century linked to the Knights Templars and whose grand masters supposedly included Leonardo da Vinci, Victor Hugo and Sir Isaac Newton, guarded documents that challenged orthodox Christian tenets and history. The writers claimed that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and that their offspring fled the Holy Land and found refuge in a Jewish community in the south of France, thus preserving their lineage.

In The Da Vinci Code, Jesus did not die on the Cross, but married Mary Magdalene and started a family in France, where descendants of their child survive to this day. Leonardo was among members of the Priory of Sion, which guards the bloodline of Christ and Mary Magdalene, who knew the explosive secret. Both narratives begin with a mystery that leads sleuths to more sinister intrigues. In The Da Vinci Code, it is the murder of Jacques Saunière, a curator of the Louvre. In The Holy Blood, there is the mysterious death of a real-life priest in the south of France, also called Saunière. Brown argues that the Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction, but, in a statement of fact prefacing his novel, he refers only to the documents in the Bibliothèque Nationale, “Les Dossiers Secrets”, which played a major part in the research done for The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Last month, The Washington Times wrote that Mr Brown “cribbed” most of his supposed historical facts from The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail. Ironically, the two books are published by the same publishing house, Random House, through the Corgi and Arrow imprints.

The respective agents for the three authors declined to comment yesterday on the legal action, but insiders at Random House confirmed that a legal case was being prepared. The Da Vinci Code is to be made into a film, directed by Ron Howard and starring Harrison Ford. Liz Thomson of Publishing News, said: “Charges of plagiarism and breach of copyright are notoriously hard to prove, but if Baigent and his co-authors — who have themselves now fallen out — do pursue a case through the courts, the action is likely to jeopardise Columbia’s planned film of The Da Vinci Code.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,170-1281209,00.html


AND anyone who has read GENISIS by David Woods will realise that the whole Mervoginian legends saga is old hat but still guaranteed to rake in the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Wat_Tyler]

1. The authors of 'Holy Blood and Holy Grail' are plagiarists themselves.

Anyway, what work has not borrowed something from others? Literature is an unfolding work, no one author can really claim ownership of an idea.

[htuttle]

3. They also sold their books as 'non-fiction'

If they were supposed to be historical works, as they said they were, how could they sue because somebody stole their 'plot'?

:eyes:

[asthmaticeog]

7. I would add, if I may,

that that especially holds true in the case of fictional works derived from non-fiction (or alleged non-fiction, in this case). Outside of product R&D and a few other exceptions, it's ridiculous for a researcher (and a historian all the more so) to lay proprietary claim to the facts he's unearthed.

[Heyo]

2. Dan Brown himself...

... has said that Holy Blood Holy Grain was part of the research he did for the DaVinci Code.

plagiarism? I don't know. But the DaVinci Code is an awesome book. I have read all 4 of Dan Brown's books and they are my favorite fiction books of all time.

Heyo

[Maeve]

4. You can't copyright a plot

And the non-fiction writer can't really claim "theft" of history being used as fiction. This one is going nowhere, except to sell more of all the books.

[amazona]

8. yeah there are only 7 plots

Boy meets girl, the quest, etc. I don't remember the exact number but I remember when we studied this, it was shocking how almost every piece of fiction could be placed in one of a very few plotlines.

[emad]

9. Plagiarism rules very explicit both in US and UK. To sue successfully

you have to establish personal pecuniary gain for work accredited to others.

Dan Brown skating on thin ice, but the topic is overworked.

[yellowcanine]

5. This is crap. The author wove a fictional tale based on some old legends.

No one can claim copyright on the old legends themselves. If I write a story which includes the legend of Washington and the cherry tree another author can't sue me just because his story included that legend as well.

[amazona]

6. this is silly

You can't copyright ideas, and the ideas in Holy Blood, Holy Grail have been a part of occult/metaphysical discourse for many centuries. I read this book some years ago and it's quite a fine novel/hoax posing as nonfiction and I was vastly entertained, but as far as hard-hitting "research," please don't make me laugh. They don't have a leg to stand on and probably know it. This lawsuit is a publicity stunt -- like Ray Bradbury suing Michael Moore because Bradbury pretends to believe he owns the word "fahrenheit."

As publicity stunts go, suing other authors who share your interests and ideas is a really ****ty thing to do and does not promote a sense of community.

[nickinSTL]

10. the idea isn't new

I'm quite sure these guys didn't come up with it.

I've read it other places, that they haven't sued.

It's all about money. Considering how much money Brown is making off the idea, they're going to claim it's theirs to try to get a slice.

[Finder]

11. Any publicity is good publicity...

Just a way to keep all authors involved in the news and in the cash. Sales, sales, sales...

[David__77]

12. This is an excellent book, and it's not plagiarism.

The book mentions these works several times and the fact that they broke ground in revealing this research. This new work only weaves this research into a fictional plot. I do believe, by the way, that it's true that it was the pagan Roman emperor who corrupted Christianity's revolutionary potential through such concepts as the Trinity and eshrining patriarchy, etc.

[htuttle]

13. Indeed

Before Rome became Christianized, Christianity became 'Romanized'.

[emad]

14. Brown's book is interesting counter-intelligence to the truth about

Leonardo's greatest paintings.

The Mona Lisa/La Giaconda is not the ONLY one of its type. Four others, variations on the theme, are held in a private collection in the UK by reclusive US art collector.

Also a number of other Leonardo art works and historical documents about the artist, his life and the history of those who owned his extraordinary output of work, accepted as settlement in a series of lawsuits against the Catholic Church in the mid 1970s.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. the 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' suit looks pretty weak

since, as everyone says, they claimed it was non-fiction.

But the similarities to "The Da Vinci Legacy" have been pointed out before:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/30/DDGB45S7JV1.DTL

In novel one, curators slump to the floor dead, and the hero and heroine elude secret brotherhoods and Vatican renegades across Europe to find a secret that will destroy Christianity. Da Vinci is mixed up in the plots, as is the idea that the early role of women in the church was suppressed.

In novel two, which came out 20 years later, curators slump to the floor dead, and the hero and heroine elude secret brotherhoods and Vatican renegades across Europe to find a secret that will destroy Christianity. Da Vinci is mixed up in the plots, as is the idea that the early role of women in the church was suppressed.
...
For example, Perdue says his "smoking gun" is that Brown repeated Perdue's own mistake in saying that Da Vinci wrote on parchment, when the famed Italian artist actually wrote on linen. "That error occurs nowhere else but in my work and his," says Perdue. Repeated errors are a big deal in copyright infringement cases.

[Phillycat]

16. Can he be sued for sucking instead?