The Da Vinci Code’s Sources: Did Dan Brown Really Borrow From Holy Blood, Holy Grail? | Carl E. Olson

The Da Vinci Code’s Sources: Did Dan Brown Really Borrow From Holy Blood, Holy Grail? | Carl E. Olson | February 27, 2006

Novelist Dan Brown is being sued in England for alleged breach of copyright law by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail (Dell, 1983). The Chicago Tribune reports that Dan Brown's lawyer has said the following about his client's alleged use of Holy Blood, Holy Grail in The Da Vinci Code:

But Jonathan Baldwin, representing Random House, said Baigent and Leigh were making "wild allegations." He said they were suggesting that "Mr. Brown has appropriated not only the numerous parts of a jigsaw puzzle but the organizational way (Baigent and Leigh) put it together."

"In brief, the complaint appears to be that 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' discloses the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had children which survived and married into a line of French kings, that the lineage continues today, and that there is a secret society based in France which has the objective of restoring this lineage to the thrones not only of France but to the thrones of other European nations as well, and that ('The Da Vinci Code') uses some of this idea," Baldwin said.

He said Brown referred to "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in his novel, but the earlier book "did not have anything like the importance to Mr. Brown which the claimants contend it had."

So, Baldwin admits to Brown referring to some of the major premises of Holy Blood, Holy Grail (New York, 1982, 1983) but suggests that Brown's novel does not draw deeply from the book by Michael Baigent, Richard Liegh, and Henry Lincoln, nor really follow its structure or organization. True or not true? Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that the attorney for the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail isn't, of course, buying that argument:

Counsel for the two writers today disputed claims by Mr Brown, one of the highest paid authors in history, that their work was "incidental" to the creation of The Da Vinci Code, which has sold more than 40m copies worldwide. Jonathan James, QC, told Mr Justice Peter Smith in the chancery division of the high court today that this was an "extraordinary claim that would surprise anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code after reading The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

The QC said Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh's theory had "spawned many other books" that explored aspects of their historical conjecture in a variety of ways. But he added that only The Da Vinci Code had "lifted the central theme of the book"- the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, had a child, and the bloodline continues to this day, with the Catholic Church trying to suppress the discovery. Mr James said "many people all over the world" had commented that the novel had lifted this focal theme.

Indeed many readers have noticed the "lifting" of "this focal theme" (and others), including myself and Sandra Miesel in our book The Da Vinci Hoax, where we note several times how Brown relies upon the 1983 book. Here in more detail is a look at some of the words, phrases, and ideas that The Da Vinci Code appears to borrow from Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Continue reading...

Comments

[D M Brown]

I have yet to hear any legal explanation of how Baigent and Leigh own the ideas in their book. Copyright simply protects expression.

The Da Vinci Hoax talks about Baigent and Leigh's ideas, too. Will they sue you next?

[Carl Olson]

The Da Vinci Hoax talks about Baigent and Leigh's ideas, too. Will they sue you next?

No, for at least two reasons:

1). Our book hasn't sold 30 million copies
2). We give credit and citation to Baigent and Co. whenever referring to their book.

I have yet to hear any legal explanation of how Baigent and Leigh own the ideas in their book. Copyright simply protects expression.

I don't competely follow. Isn't HBHG supposedly an expression of unique ideas not found elsewhere, expressed in a certain manner? Frankly, this copyright stuff is very confusing...

[Mark Brumley]

Well, "D.M. Brown", who knows. Perhaps they will. But of course the ideas defended in The Da Vinci Hoax didn't originate with Baigent and Leigh, but with the Catholic Church. And the last time I checked, the Catholic Church wasn't suing people for showing the historical reliability of its traditions or for refuting crazy claims of its enemies. The Da Vinci Hoax sets the record straight on that score, as Francis Cardinal George of Chicago makes clear in his foreword.

I'm not in a position to say whether English copyright law has been infringed. But it is evident that a hefty amount of borrowing has been done by Dan Brown. That borrowing seems to be, as Carl Olson and Sandra Miesel point out, the main part of the basis for The Da Vinic Code's amusing and fantastical claim to have been spun out of substantial historical research. Nevertheless, in the academic world, such unattributed "borrowing" would be regarded as plagarism. Whether in the world of fiction publishing it amounts to copyright infringement remains to be seen.

[Cristina A. Montes]

I can't help but laugh when I re-read a decision of the Philippine Supreme Court that said: "If so much is taken that the value of the original work is substantially diminished, there is an infringement of copyright and to an injurious extent, the work is appropriated."

I wonder: Did TDVC substantially diminish the value of HBHG?

[D M Brown]

Carl makes an important distinction -- plagiarism and copyright infringement are two separate issues.

Copyright is a type of property law. Baigent and Leigh don't _own_ the ideas and alleged facts in their book. The rest of us are free to write about them.

If copyright prevented people from writing about ideas and facts written in others' books, then there could only be one writer with authority to write about any given idea. E.g., if I were the first person to right a book arguing that the Da Vinci Code is historically inaccurate, then no one else could right about that idea -- because I would own it.

[Cristina A. Montes]

What I find ironic is that it's the people who agree with Dan Brown's theory who are suing him, and not, say, the Catholic Church and Opus Dei.