Holy Blood, Holy Law Suit...Batman!

For whoever is not aware of this, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail had filed a law suit against the davinci code folks (book and movie) claiming the whole think was stolen from their "non-fiction" book.

So here's a link with an update, suit moving forward:

www.scifi.com...

My basic feeling is that if you publishing something as non-fiction it automatically become resource material for fiction authors, if it's true it's a fact and not owned by anyone.

It's like doing a movie about Lincoln and then getting sued by every person who ever wrote any sort of biography about lincoln.

Just my opinion of course, but I think it's just two guys feeling left out.

SPiderj

So everyone who has done a Civil War Documentary gets to sue any movie/book based on the Civil War? COuld you imagine PBS suing Warner Brothers for Uh, whatever?

Can't think of the name, like Kings and Generals or something, and COld Mountain, I think. I have the name on the tip of my frontal lobe but can't get it.

It's finally going to court, check the link below:

news.bbc.co.uk...

I haven't read any of these books but am making my way towards the Da Vinci Code, eventually.



[edit on 2/27/06 by w1kdtr1p]

Thanks for the update, interesting article.

My feeling is that the HBHG boys will not win the lawsuit.

HBHG has always been touted as a serious book based on factual research and hypothisis. This in my opinion and I think most instantly makes HBHG a reference material.

Dan Browns book used a lot of religious conspiracy source materials and I'm sure HBHG was one of them and I don't think there is anything wrong with that at all.

If they didn't want someone using their materials they should have copyrighted it as fiction.

IMO of course.

Spiderj

Besides Dan Brown's book brought new attention to their book - a whole new audience to read it that may not have even been alive when it was published originally. I have the book from years ago but I am sure that if I didn't have it I would have been interested in it -- especially since they were some of the experts on the various documentaries that came out after the DaVinci Code was published.

Just an update, seems a judge threw out the case...which in my opinion was the right thing to do.

You can't go around publishing stuff under the guise of serious research and then claim a fiction author stole your ideas...

here's a link:

www.cnn.com...

Spiderj

Well, maybe you can, since at least one of the "serious research authors" (Lincoln) has since publically stated he never really believed the stuff he helped co-author in Holy Blood and the two follow-up books, which would tend to make the "serious research" just that much more fiction.

He can say he doesn't believe in it now until he's blue in the face.

It all comes down to how it was portrayed when it was published and of course the guys that wrote holy blood holy grail have never seemed to have an aversion to being interviewed for absolutely every single documentary that even strays into the subject.

In every interview I've ever seen with them they preached the gospel of their research very sincerely and portrayed it as factual not a work of fiction.

In a court of law you cannot publish fiction as fact and then claim copyright infringement when someone uses your book as a reference material.

Any I.P. lawyers on the board want to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am.

Spiderj

Originally posted by Spiderj
In every interview I've ever seen with them they preached the gospel of their research very sincerely and portrayed it as factual not a work of fiction.

So would I have done, had I wanted better sales in them days (i.e. pre-Code times, when the subject matter seems to have been not so well known in English-speaking circles).

I liked Holy Blood when I first found it, but as I re-read it a couple of times (hey, I had a boring job back then and hardly any books to choose from) I started seeing flaws everywhere, especially when checking more truly factual works.

Anyhow - have you seen "the other two" (Baigent and whatshisname), i.e. Lincoln's co-writers, interviewed anywhere? I've only seen bits and pieces of Lincoln on the Discovery Channel.

I have seen the others in both History channel documentaries (wich include things run on history, discovery and learning channel) and of course the big ones CBS, NBC and ABC specials.

But the point is had they stated from the beginning "this is a work of fiction based on theory" they'd probably be protected. But the fact is they pushed it as fact wether they believed it at the time or not and were just trying to boost sales doesn't matter.

Although if they had known all along that it was fiction and that the Priory of Sion was made up and that Plantard had started the whole thing from the forged priory documents to him being the descendent of Jesus...if they knew all along it was crap and presented as fact for monetary gain that is fraud plain and simple.

In my opinion the fact that they claimed copyright infringement not only makes them seem petty but (at least to me) seems to state that they knew and have known, most likely since they wrote the book that plantard was at the least supsect if not an out and out fraud.

So in the end if it was fiction and they knew it was fiction when they published it they never should have published it as fact.

Best question ever asked about this entire thing I ever saw was one of the myriad of documentaries where the narrator asks the audience...."If the priory of sion was created to hide, protect and keep secret the line of Jesus and Mary why in the world would they ever leave clues in public works that anyone with the right amount of deductive reasoning and gumption could follow those clues and learn the secret of mary and jesus children.

That makes no sense for a society that is supposed to not only be the most secret society of all time but one specifically formed to guard and keep hidden the descendents of christ.

IMO of course.

Spiderj

Originally posted by Spiderj
Although if they had known all along that it was fiction and that the Priory of Sion was made up and that Plantard had started the whole thing from the forged priory documents to him being the descendent of Jesus...if they knew all along it was crap and presented as fact for monetary gain that is fraud plain and simple.

Ooops. Then Lincoln at least is guilty, since I saw him reveal how one of "Plantard's" pals had revealed it as a fake during the research phase (before Holy Blood was released).

Though I also heard "Plantard" wasn't too amused about the Jesus-connection (which it seems Lincoln et al added on their own), when he only wanted a smidgeon of Merovingian royal blood...

(EDIT

By the way, isn't your "Location" a line from an old B-52's song? (Apart from any connection to real-life geography.)

[edit on 1-7-2006 by ochre]

I believe Lincoln has mea culpa'd a couple of times and yes plantard was not happy with the jesus stuff...but he certainly seemed to have no problem playing along as the reluctant savior.

I'm not sure if the line is from a b-52s song, though I do like the b-52s I took it from an old, old, old Robin Williams rant.

Spiderj

Though now since you've brought up the B-52's I may change my location to Private Idaho.

Spiderj

You do that, and I'll pick "53 Miles West of Venus" in honour of the UFO stuff. Or maybe to salute the old fraud "Plantard."