Tuesday, March 14, 2006
COPYRIGHTING HISTORY -- OR NOT
It continues to puzzle me, this trial of Dan Brown over copyright infringement in the DAVINCI CODE. Can history be copyrighted? If I'm the first person to witness an historical event, can I write the story and claim the copyright?
Obviously I could claim a copyright over the literal words in the order in which I use them in my account, but somehow that doesn't seem to be quite the same thing. I don't think Dan Brown lifted Biagent and Leigh's language from HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL. The court argument seems to be over the premise that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and they had a child. If that were truely historical, no one could copyright it, could they?
On the other hand, if it's a story fabricated by Baigent and Leigh, maybe they could claim copyright infringement on their storyline. Which is what they seem to be doing according to Reuters:
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, co-authors of the 1982 Holy Blood book who are suing Brown's British publisher Random House, say he lifted their ideas wholesale.
If they win this lawsuit, can we then take it as a given that the courts have ruled that the story is historically false?
Speaking of history, according to the Reuters report:
The court heard discussions on the difference between British and U.S. punctuation and spelling, as Brown sought to prove documents attributed to his wife were not her work.
Again Blythe emerged as a key partner in Brown's phenomenal success, researching and suggesting plot ideas as he wrote.
Blythe Brown is said by Brown to be an art historian:
Dan has always described Blythe as a painter and art historian. But after curious researchers failed to unearth an alma mater where she had qualified in either of these fields, Brown referred to her as an 'art history buff' instead. Painting is mainly her hobby.
The critiques of the DAVINCI CODE which have repeatedly shown that the claims made in the book are not historical fact, might be useful to indicate that Blythe Brown's "history" is actually subject to copyright infringement, unlike real history. Afterall, if you write a fairy tale, you can copyright it.
In any case, perhaps Baigent and Leigh should be kissing the floor of Dan Brown's bank, considering the renewed interest in HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL that has been brought about by Brown's book.
That renewed interest has me thinking. Could the trial, and its incredible timing that is keeping the title front and center in the public eye just as the movie is going to be released, be the latest novelty in publicity stunts? Could Dan Brown, Michael Baigent, and Richard Leigh have concocted the whole thing to sell books? If they did, it's got to be one of the boldest moves we've seen in advertising. When you've sold millions of copies of your book, does your ego become so inflated that you believe the national courts are at your disposal?
HOLY BLOOD, HOLY GRAIL has three authors. Interestingly, the name Henry Lincoln does not appear in the court records, as Lewis Perdue, author of the blog "The Da Vinci Crock" points out. I wonder why? Is it that he does not think his work has been plagarized? Is it that he smells a fraud and doesn't want to be part of it?
There is also the fact that Random House is suing Random House, publisher of both books. Does this make any sense? Well, yes, it does if the objective of the law suit is to promote book sales. This just might be the best marketing scheme of the decade!
Can a court system sue a publishing house for waste of taxpayer money and fraud?
