I think they have got NO case against Dan Brown and it's their own fault. They regard their own work as historic research and not as fiction. In this case they can't possibly copyright historic facts or hypotheses. If this was possible any author of history manuals would see a flood of copyright cases..... no?

Btw I LOVED Holy Bloood Holy Grail !! Too bad it comes to this. They should have been glad - sales of their book are up on an astronomical scale, Dan Brown acknowledged their work (even naming a character Leigh Teabing ;-)

JBro

One cannot copyright history. If Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh claim in court that "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is fiction, then they could have a case. However, nobody would read anything by them except as fiction and they would have perpetrated fraud on the public. If they claim that "quotes" were lifted from their book and proper credit was not given, then they would have a case.
Since the former is highly unlikely and the latter, as I understand it, is not true it then follows that they have no case what so ever. I call their attitude into question as they are obviously jealous of not only Brown's notoriety, but the obvious fortune he has made off a cleaver idea. (He’s really a hack, as many fiction writers are)
RRE

Greg

Baring in mind that the material in these books has been around in dusty corners of libraries along with some of the conclusions for well over half a century , I think that long forgotten authors might have a case against all of the above; because, very little, if any, truely origional research was done by any of the above. Having read them and allowing for the benefit of the doubt, I would be very interest in knowing if anyone can find even one piece of truely origional research in any of them!

What do you think?

Where's the origional research?

kennc

Yah, ditto to all the previous comments -- you can't copyright ideas....only the order of words on paper. Makes me wonder if HBHG authors are looking to piggyback on Brown's visibility, or if they are screwy enough to think they CAN control the ideas. I read HBHG some decades ago during my wasted youth, thought it was cool. With the benefit of passing years (and a more thorough understanding of history), the HBHG "theory" screams 'fantasy' to me now. Waiting to see how this plays out....

alevangel

It is very questionable whether this is a copyright violation.

On the other hand, Dan Brown's claim that he dreamed this up all by himself is much less than believable. That claim is just silly. But that is what he reportedly said today (BBC).

Of course, it is quite believable that he invented a story line to fit in with speculative interpretations of history. That is what makes his books interesting, and there is nothing wrong with that, and certainly nothing illegal.

So I would say that Dan Brown makes up fiction, as a good fiction author should, based on both accepted knowledge and speculative extensions of accepted theories, and on alternatives to accepted theories.

He should not claim that he did all this by himself. He clearly has not.

I'm in the process of reading HBHG and I find it fascinating. I read TDVC about a year and a half ago and thought it brought to light some plausible ideas, but didn't look into it any further. I remember seeing a link online somewhere to HBHG but paid no attention to it, and I regret to admit that I'm only just now reading it because of current events. However, the original research it contains is amazing. Of course, anything you read you can choose to either accept it as true or not, but the evidence seems to abound in the novel. Granted, it is full of admitted speculations, but the hypotheses that were derived were all of reasonable thought - nothing that would make the authors seem foolish to anyone other than very devoted religious fanatics refusing to believe anything other than what has been force-fed to them. But more on the point - if HBHG is a non-fiction book, then as much as I am beginning to admire the authors for their research and zeal, I don't believe they have a leg to stand on. Historical fiction as a whole has been a concept for writers far before Dan Brown, and I believe that wherever he supposedly got the ideas for his book, it makes no difference. As stated previously, unless he quoted an exact phrase with no footnoting or mention of any kind, then he has a complete right to his novel. The point of historical fiction afterall is to take a few historical facts, and twist them around an interesting fictional story. I haven't researched it myself, but has Dan Brown ever claimed that EVERYTHING in his book is fact? And sorry this is so long, but one last thing - I don't see what the big deal is; it's all very interesting, the bloodline, the grail, Priory of Sion, etc, but who's to say ANY of it is fact? I'd like to believe so because it just seems to make a little more sense, but no one ever REALLY knows. Anything can be covered up, hidden, and fictionalized. ...How's that for my first post? Heh
Audrey

I find it bizarre that the Holy Blood, Holy Grail authors have brought this action against Dan Brown. Their own non-fiction work has profited immensely from the association with Brown's FICTIONAL bestseller, which of course drew on the ideas of Baigent and Leigh (and the third author, Henry Lincoln, who is not involved in the legal action), as well as a few others who have entertained the theory of what the grail could truly be.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail was a great read, and at one time quite hard to find in book stores, verging on out-of-print status.
The Da Vinci Code has given the book a shot in the arm, a second life. It seems a peculiar way to thank one's indirect benefactor.
I can only surmise that somehow the authors feel that Brown's subsequent kudos and bestseller status should be theirs, that he is cashing in on their work...that perhaps he has stolen their thunder. On the other hand, they may feel he has trivialised their work.
I can say right now that any thinking person can tell the difference between fact and fiction, and those truly motivated and inspired by the places and snippets of history pulled together in Brown's book(s) have gone on to search out the same sources the author turned to in his own research.
This otherwise template thriller has helped to make history cool and generated opportunities for other authors to write books 'decoding' the codes Brown uses and create accessible mainstream history books.
I really don't think Baigent and Leigh have a hope in hell, but I hope for their sakes they don't lose too much money in this fiasco of a court case.
However if, in an alternate universe they managed to win this action, think what a precedent it would set. How many other works of fiction would likewise be subject to litigation because they wove their fictional story into a "factual" or historical context first mooted by somebody else?

Ruby
www.strangenation.com.au

In his news briefs on 21st March, Greg linked to this article which decries the intellectual snobbery against Dan Brown and TDVC. I disagreed with the article's assertion that TDVC is a great book because it sold 40 million copies, and anyone who didn't enjoy it is in the ignorant minority. I argue quality, not quantity, is more important. Selling lots of books doesn't make it a great book. You just have to look at popular music for examples of this rule.

However, I do agree with the article's other assertion, and that is the intellectual snobbery aimed at TDVC; but that's to be expected for a book that's sold 40 million copies and film rights.

I just stumbled across the Da Vinci Hoax by Sandra Miesel. The petty ridicule Sandra and her cronies spit at Dan Brown and TDVC should shock me -- but alas I've seen such jealous snobbery many times before. Have a read, it's quite an eye-opener. Sandra Miesel writes:

That he tries to pass off ludicrous sources such as THE TEMPLAR REVELATION, Margaret Starbird, Jim Marrs, THE TOMB OF CHRIST, THE HIRAM KEY, or Barbara Walker as legitimate scholarly authorities is laughable. And that's putting it kindly.

That just about sums up Miesel's snobbery.

And one wonders why Ms Miesel and her Scooby Gang aren't aiming at Lewis Perdue -- who has a legitimate case of plagiarism against Dan Brown, but ironically is being sued by Random House. Coincidence? I don't think so.

After reading all of these comments i think that it is clear that Baigent and Leigh probably don't have a case of copyright infringement on Dan Brown, although I am not even sure of the exact specification of the case. What exactly is Dan Brown being sued for?
I think that he might have been wise to include the authors names in the book, especially when he mentioned the title HBHG. One of the main reasons I think only Leigh and Biagent might be involved, and this is kind of a naive theory, is that they might feel they were mocked by Brown's use of the character Leigh Teabing, which is an anagram for Leigh Baigent. Viewed in one way, Brown can be seen to be having a laugh (legally) and being mischievous, however, this might have been Dan Brown's idea of a tilt of the hat in their direction as well. I'm not really sure on this one, any ideas?

I seems to me that if Dan Brown had only properly acknowledged HBHG and its authors, none of this would be an issue. But then, I have my doubts as to if Dan Brown even knew where his material came from! Therefore, I consider Dan Brown negligent and irresponsible in accrediting any sources except those of his wife. Did he ever ask her where her material was coming from? It is obvious the anagram was a lucky stoke. Perhaps Mr. Brown should have properly said his book was based on the historical book, HBHG. This would be much like the producers of a film crediting an author/book with an acknowlegment such as 'this film was based on...'

I have read most,if not all books dealing with the subject, I believe the general subjects have been under discussion for the last hundred years by specialists as various ancient texts have been discovered.

Dan Browns book brought this subject to the attention of a large number of people that had been comfortable in the orthadox views. So the blame game begins.

brusmon

Thank. The Gods. It's. Over.

I already gave my opinion on this question but what I wanted to say now is has anyone seen the show"Digging for the Truth?" Interesting show--according to the host the theory that Jesus married and had a child is false. There is no evidence proving that he did marry---