Shocker: Nothing Wrong With Doing A Bit Of Historical Research For A Novel

from the congrats-on-the-publicity dept

Fri, Apr 7th 2006 9:57am — Mike Masnick

Back in February, there was a story about two publicity seeking authors who sued Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code for the horrible crime of doing some research for his novel. The pair of authors who were suing had written what was supposedly a non-fiction book (though, the work has been pretty thoroughly debunked), from which Brown took the basis of his plot for the fiction novel. For some reason, they thought this entitled them to payment. If they were really claiming their book was non-fiction, then this is problematic, because you can't copyright "facts." However, it became pretty clear that this was all just a publicity stunt for their book (whose sales have shot way up since the association between the two books was publicized). Either way, it appears that the judge in the case has recognized how pointless this all is and has thrown out the case. Of course, the timing of the case coming so close to the release of the movie based on the novel seems to add weight to the idea it was all a publicity stunt. Nice to know that the court systems are wasting plenty of time and taxpayer money to help boost book sales.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

12 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 7 Apr 2006 @ 10:13am

first
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jdw242, 7 Apr 2006 @ 10:18am

fines all around
so, we can fine them for wasting our time keeping up with all the drivel from the 'case'?

I bill at $150/hour.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ZOMG CENSORED, 7 Apr 2006 @ 11:40am

At least...
...people are reading (poorly written excuses for) books again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 7 Apr 2006 @ 12:01pm

Re: fines all around
Would be nice if my taxes went to something productive...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wolfger, 7 Apr 2006 @ 12:15pm

Re: At least...
Who has time to read? I listened to the book on CD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ben, 7 Apr 2006 @ 12:35pm

I wasn't shocked
Who was seriously shocked at this outcome?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
JC, 7 Apr 2006 @ 12:47pm

Not our tax money
A claim that Dan Brown's bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code copied the ideas of two other authors has gone before London's High Court.

At least this time it is not my tax dollar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 7 Apr 2006 @ 12:55pm

Huh?
Mike, you wrote, "Either way, it appears that the judge in the case has recognized how pointless this all is and has thrown out the case."

But a couple lines later you write, "Nice to know that the court systems are wasting plenty of time and taxpayer money to help boost book sales."

Are you accusing the author or the court for wasting time and money? You said yourself that the judge saw the pointlessness of the case and threw it out. But then you blame the court in the last sentence.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jamie, 7 Apr 2006 @ 1:12pm

Re: Huh?
He isn't "blaming" the court for the wasted time. Haven't you ever heard of sarcasm. He is stating that, yes the court did exactly correct in dissmissing the case, but the case should never have gotten to the court in the first place. So it is quite clear that the court's time and the taxpayers money was wasted on this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cntzero, 7 Apr 2006 @ 1:14pm

heh heh heh... he said "Shocker"..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike (profile), 7 Apr 2006 @ 1:15pm

Re: Huh?

Are you accusing the author or the court for wasting time and money? You said yourself that the judge saw the pointlessness of the case and threw it out. But then you blame the court in the last sentence.

Blaming the authors for bringing the case and wasting the court's money (funded by taxpayers, of course). Sorry if the wording is unclear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff, 8 Apr 2006 @ 6:26pm

Also of interest
Is the fact that both books share the same publisher. Holy Blood is published by Random House under their Dell imprint. While Da Vinci Code is published by Random House under their Doubleday company.

Makes you wonder who was promoting whom with the movie coming out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]