Anything as wildly popular and profitable as “The Da Vinci Code” was bound to become the victim of some wild, unsubstantiated idea theft lawsuits. People claiming his idea for the book wasn’t really his. People claiming he plaguerized passages from other books. People claiming Leonardo Da Vinci came up with the Mona Lisa first. Well, so far it’s Dan Brown 1, jealous authors 0.
LONDON (LA Times) — Dan Brown did not steal copyrighted ideas to created his international blockbuster mystery novel, “The Da Vinci Code,” an English court ruled today.
A judge at the High Court in London ruled that while Brown may have copied portions of a 1982 book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” the action did not violate any copyright.
“Even if the central themes were copied, they are too general, or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law,” Judge Peter Smith held.
For three weeks, Brown faced off in a London courtroom with other authors over whether the literary skeleton that underlies the novel and the forthcoming movie were stolen.
The plantiffs in the case were asking the judge for an injunction against all things “Da Vinci” including the 40 million copies of Brown’s book and the upcoming movie. Of course, since the court ruled in Brown’s favor, the judge denied their request. Thanks Judge. You were my ticket out of this hype.
Of course, Brown isn’t the first high profile author to get the plagurism card dealt into his hand. Even William Shakespeare has to dodge accusations to this day that Francis Bacon actually wrote all of his works. It’s even harder for Shakespeare to defend now that he’s…well, dead.
But, seriously, who in their right mind would claim they actually wrote “The Da Vinci Code,” the most boring novel in the last 20 years? That’s like saying you were responsible for keeping “Family Matters” on the air longer than a year.
13 responses so far ↓
1 Danny Kaye // May 22, 2006 at 8:54 am
Plagiarism is how it’s spelled, dingbat! Not “plagurism”. What a maroon!
2 Jeff Neal // Jul 5, 2006 at 10:27 pm
Dear Dannye Kaye……”What a maroon”? He’s a redish color? Maroon means:
1. To put ashore on a deserted island or coast and intentionally abandon.
2. To abandon or isolate with little hope of ready rescue or escape: The travelers were marooned by the blizzard.
n.
1. often Maroon
1. A fugitive Black slave in the West Indies in the 17th and 18th centuries.
2. A descendant of such a slave.
2. A person who is marooned, as on an island.
[From French marron, fugitive slave, from American Spanish cimarrón, wild, runaway, perhaps from cima, summit (from runaways' fleeing to the mountains), from Latin c[ymacr]ma, sprout. See cyma.]
Perhaps you meant moron? Idiot. Miss the point to correct the spelling. I think you are an idiot. I think they are called type-o’s.
3 Jeff Neal // Jul 5, 2006 at 10:30 pm
Danny not Dannye…..I made a type-o. Oh my!!! The world shall end and now you can feel smarter than everyone else.
4 Peter Foos // Jul 21, 2006 at 2:39 pm
So, it’s safe to say there are no comments for this segment. Very well, I have one. Thank you for saying what others are afraid to, that the ‘Da Vinci Code’ is a boring book.
P.S.- Jeff? Have you ever watched a Bugs Bunny cartoon? He said “what a maroon” to Elmer Fudd all the time as an insult. No one knows why, it was for comic effect. So take a Valium and relax.
5 joshua // Aug 25, 2006 at 12:26 am
hay asshole the ‘Da Vinci Code’ was one of the best books I have ever read, you ar probably one of those religous assholes that cant open there minds far enough to look out side the box. It’s ok, you not alone, there a whole lot of churches out there that think that jesus didnt have sex, my question to you is why could’nt. Plus the book was probably to long, and had to many big words for someone with a second grade reading level like yourself. Just remember the bible could be a lie (most likely is) so think out side the box. you never know, you might learn a thing or to.
a cunning individual
joshua
6 Katelynn // Sep 21, 2006 at 11:34 am
Josh - buddy - pal - the book is FICTION. See? Lets type it again shall we? FICTION. As in not real. So if you base your
religion on that then you are easily influenced, sheep. Yes, the book is based on factual opinions, that don’t make it
something to rely all opinions on.
Also, people DO have differant opinions. Meaning - though I’ve read most of Anne Rice and enjoyed it thoroughly I have a friend
that can’t stand her style and has read all of Sherlock Holmes and enjoyed THAT thoroughly though I can’t make it through a
mystery without a little bit of drewl.
Conclusion: He stated his opinion “the book is boring” you accused him of being a religious stick and slammed his choice of
reading material. - Unfounded, buddy.
As for that lawsuit. Fucking amazing. I was crossing my fingers the whole time. Those books aren’t identical. If that case went
through authors would need to start fearing because almost all authors have an influence, and being an influence aint a bad
thing.
I myself never read the book, want to… one day… maybe after I finish the Anne Rice series - all of them and all of
King and a few more. Just another book on my list.
7 Jake // Sep 24, 2006 at 12:59 am
Well, regardless of anyone’s opinion the man has still sold over 40 million copies and could probably care
less whether you believe his book was based on loose facts or whether someone 20 years prior had written a
book with *gasp* the same “general” concept. The point of any good book is to get people riled (sp?) up,
to get people’s blood pumping and to give people something to argue about. Not to mention what Katelynn
already pointed out which is…IT’S FICTION! If it opens your mind to possibilities that you’ve never thought
about like the Bible may contain lies than great. Educate yourself! If you believe that it’s false than
research it and thank Dan Brown for giving you the starting power to be independent and have your own ideas!
I just think it’s great how people act like they would die to defend their position that the book was crap
or that it was boring. I personally thought that it was a great book but what it did for me was open my eyes
that yes I don’t have to believe everything that people have told me about Christianity or Catholicism and
find out on my own what I find to be the most historically accurate or plausible. Anyway, I’m done ranting…
take it easy everyone…don’t forget to educate yourself! Read…
8 Tom A. // Oct 12, 2006 at 10:45 am
I thought large parts of it were boring, too. The man never let an action scene get in the way of a lecture from one of the characters.
As for the premise, even before looking into the religious history he made up, I had done some research into Arthurian legends in college, and knew that the inclusion of the Grail into the legends couldn’t have happened until the 11th or 12 centuries at the earliest, so that whole aspect of the theory made the book as believable as a story of someone leaving their chicago home and walking to the ocean for an afternoon. NOT. There were some exciting parts, but for the most part, the book didn’t do anything for me.
Tom
9 schoolboyeric // Oct 19, 2006 at 12:46 am
Family Matters rocks!!!!!
10 Jeremy Lake // Nov 6, 2006 at 2:17 am
“The Da Vinci Load” - the title of this blog, due to be released by hustler as
a p0rn0, aparently da-vinci painted the mona lisa with his sperm and didn’t
just waste it in other men - well thats the whole idea anyway. Can’t say it
sounds much worse than the one with forest gump in it, that Tom Hanks is a
big fat maroon second to nun
11 lostgenjak // Nov 12, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Well the real point i think needs revising as the almighty schoolboy eric said “Family Matters rocks”
Why would you say such a thing, Family Matters is the culmination of all great things.
Did you ever notice the segregation between Family Matters and Full House that once came on one after the other and Family Matters always came last…. RACIST…. In Conclusion Danny Gallagher is a racist
Pure and Simple.
12 Guardian // Nov 14, 2006 at 11:52 pm
While I will concede the point that this specific novel was a work of historical fiction, and the fact that some aspects were not the “correct” time frames, Dan Brown HIMSELF admitted that in his book, stating that he had construed some parts of the story. Its a liberty artists of all types are granted. However, the point still stands that there are valid points brought up in this novel.
1) The Bible has been changed.
This has been proven countless time, ie “King James Version”. The Scrolls, et cetera. Right or wrong, that is how things played out.
2) Catholicism has pulled many things from other religions.
This true has been proven many times over, where the “Pagen” religion Brown referred to when talking about Constantine of Rome is known as Mithraism. If interested, take a look, too long to post specific information about it here.
3) Symbology is incorperated into our lives without our realizing it, nor the hidden meaning that they have.
Enough said on that.
If You wish to pique what I say more, email me at ArminiusVambery@aol.com, even if you just want to say I’m a sacraligious bastard (which in some ways its plausible, but thats neither here nor there.) Peace.
13 Lisha // Nov 29, 2006 at 11:52 am
Lets argue on the internet shale we?
Im sure you guys feel so much more better about yourselfs now. You cant change someones opinion, so quit trying. Expeshally when it has to deal with religion!
Leave a Comment