Bookmark and Share
My Photo

FROM the EDITORS:

  • IMPORTANT INFORMATION:
    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.

NEW & UPCOMING, available from IGNATIUS PRESS







































































« Sandra Miesel on "The Abrams Report" today... | Main | The Trouble with the Turing Test »

Monday, February 27, 2006

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight

Twitter


Ignatius Press


Catholic World Report


WORTHY OF ATTENTION:




















Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad