Author Topic: Writers and the Law  (Read 6276 times)

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #30 on: January 12, 2005, 09:12:56 AM »
Ok, new topic.  2 New Zealand authors are sueing Dan Brown (Da Vinci Code) for plagerism and stealing Intectual property since Brown's book used their book, holy Blood holy grail,  as a bases for his book without their permission.

Now their book isn't fiction but an actual "historcal" research book that details all about the grail, the catholic secreat socitiys and all that stuff.  I've seen the History Channel based off their book too.  I don't think one can argure where Brown got the basis for his book since one of the main characters is named after the 2 that wrote HBHG.

One of the reasons I'm mentioning this is becasue last night EUOL told a mutial friend, who's been wanting to write a book, to "steal" a story for a book since so many authors do it.

here's the link.
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #31 on: January 12, 2005, 09:28:23 AM »
Does Brown cite the book at all in Da Vinci Code? Because if not, then I'd be happy to see them win.

Spriggan

  • Administrator
  • Level 78
  • *****
  • Posts: 10582
  • Fell Points: 31
  • Yes, I am this awesome
    • View Profile
    • Legacies Lost
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #32 on: January 12, 2005, 09:35:13 AM »
No, I don't beleave he does.

But here's the crux of the argument for Brown.  HBHG is a "thesius" as the book has been discribed.  So how would Brown useing their research for a book any different then someone else useing another research book as refrence?

HBHG didn't create any of the mythos they reserached, though they were the first to actualy try and fact check everything (and write about it).
Screw it, I'm buying crayons and paper. I can imagineer my own adventures! Wheeee!

Chuck Norris is the reason Waldo is hiding.


Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #33 on: January 12, 2005, 11:25:12 AM »
If HBHG is really a non-fiction work, well researched and all that, then the authors only have a very limited claim.  They can claim that Brown drew source material from their book and didn't cite it properly but that's pretty weak. I mean honestly every time I write a military SF story and draw upon my knowledge of how the M240G machine gun works am I supposed to cite the manual?  Would it be reasonable for the United States Intelligence agencies to sue Tom Clancy for plagiarism?  Brown, after all, doesn't claim to have done the research.  All Brown did was write a story.  If anything, he gave a respectful nod in the plaintiff's direction by making one of the main characters resemble all three of them.  The lawsuit is simply gold-digging.  Brown achieved success and these "historians" are just trying to leech.

I am reminded of a story Orson Scott Card tells.  He wrote a series of SF books that closely parallel in plot and character the Book of Mormon.  He received angry letters from members of the LDS church accusing him of plagiarism.  He smugly replied that he considered the BOM to be history rather than fiction so they could go stuff themselves.

Unless Leigh and Beagint (sic) consider their work fiction, they don't have a leg to stand on with the plagiarism charge.  And really, since Brown's work was fiction and openly billed as such, they don't really have a leg to stand on with the "failure to cite" charge either.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #34 on: January 12, 2005, 11:37:21 AM »
actually they do still have that leg if he's using their research and using direct quotes or using verbage very close to their own. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't steal someone else's non-fiction intellectual property.

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #35 on: January 12, 2005, 11:42:58 AM »
Quote
NoBut here's the crux of the argument for Brown.  HBHG is a "thesius" as the book has been discribed.  So how would Brown useing their research for a book any different then someone else useing another research book as refrence?

The argument, as I think you're putting it, is that it's not plagiarism because the people who wrote HBHG are using other people's research too. The difference is, the authors of HBHG, i can guarantee you, cited their references.

I doubt they're asking Brown to cite on each page, just to acknowledge that he used their ideas in the book, like most professional fiction authors do when they refer to unique research in their writing.

If they are asking for more than that, then yeah, they're out of line.
ALso, the "similar character" bit is not plagiarism. Ever. There can be a case made for libel, if you can prove that he made it clear the character was supposed to resemble a real person and that there was something demeaning to his character that was false included. But simply having a character resemble a real world person has nothing to do with plagiarism.

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #36 on: January 12, 2005, 11:59:22 AM »
Quote
actually they do still have that leg if he's using their research and using direct quotes or using verbage very close to their own. Just because it's fiction doesn't mean it doesn't steal someone else's non-fiction intellectual property.


Agreed.  If he has his historian character quote their stuff or something like that then he should properly owe them some money but if he changed the words and lifted the idea he should have cited their work but owes them nothing more than an acknowledgement.  Now that I think about it some more, if you'll recall, the one time I know of that we unknowingly abetted plagiarism at TLE (with that Sherlock Holmes/Jack the Ripper story) the solution was to print an acknowledgement in the next issue and send the whole payment to the original author.  

But unless he DID quote their words directly he was just basing his story on history; and suing someone because they wrote a novel set in a historical period where you have done research is just silly.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers

  • Administrator
  • Level 96
  • *****
  • Posts: 19211
  • Fell Points: 17
  • monkeys? yes.
    • View Profile
    • herb's world
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #37 on: January 12, 2005, 12:06:23 PM »
I concur. But I'm also glad that some judge somewhere gets to resolve it, not me.

Mad Dr Jeffe

  • Level 74
  • *
  • Posts: 9162
  • Fell Points: 7
  • Devils Advocate General
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #38 on: January 13, 2005, 12:02:47 AM »
Quote
I should have clarified, in my first statement, I didnt mean they fought against slavery, I meant they fought for the right to not be legally discriminated against i.e. Jim Crow laws. I know that white people ended slavery.



But you dont seem to know that white people were instrumental in ending those Jim Crow laws as well. Think about it, those laws were repealed by votes, where did the majority of votes come from? Considering that balcks were in the minority a large number of those votes came from whites. Whites went down to mississippi to register voters, and they were in the national guard in little rock standing along the route a little girl took to go to the first integrated school.  A lot of the people who marched with King to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial were white.

Obviously blacks were a big part of the movement, but so were whites,... thats how society works.
Its an automated robot. Based on Science!

Mistress of Darkness

  • Level 37
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Mama
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #39 on: January 13, 2005, 10:47:05 AM »
I think it would depend on how closely the books followed each other. I haven't read either book, but I don't think any author should be allowed to take a work of non-fiction and re-write it as a fiction story and pass it off as original. At that point you should need to have the permission of the author(s) before you publish.

It would be interesting to read both and see, but I heard the Da Vinci Code was less than stellar.

EDIT: It occurs to me that I ought to point out that if OSC did the same with the BOM, I can't really ignore this point after what I stated above. Again, I believe that it should depend on the extent of the parallels.

But, I accept the possibility that I could be wrong. That's just how I think things should work.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2005, 10:54:10 AM by Treyva »
" If i ever need a pen-name I'd choose EUOL, just to confuse everyone. " --Entropy

Entsuropi

  • Level 60
  • *
  • Posts: 5033
  • Fell Points: 0
  • =^_^= Captain of the highschool Daydreaming team
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #40 on: January 13, 2005, 11:30:12 AM »
But the thing is MoD - the other authors didn't invent the history, they merely researched it. You cannot patent history. Otherwise band of brothers would be sued by people who wrote WW2 history books - its exactly the same situation.
If you're ever in an argument and Entropy winds up looking staid and temperate in comparison, it might be time to cut your losses and start a new thread about something else :)

Fellfrosch

Mistress of Darkness

  • Level 37
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Mama
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #41 on: January 13, 2005, 02:24:26 PM »
I think you're stretching the point Entropy. I believe there is a big difference between reporting facts, especially on events and periods of history with hundreds of scholars and researchers, and writing a book that theorizes a completely different path of history than the standard accepted one.

Did that make sense?
« Last Edit: January 13, 2005, 02:25:45 PM by Treyva »
" If i ever need a pen-name I'd choose EUOL, just to confuse everyone. " --Entropy

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #42 on: January 13, 2005, 02:33:27 PM »
No.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch

Mistress of Darkness

  • Level 37
  • *
  • Posts: 2322
  • Fell Points: 0
  • Mama
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #43 on: January 13, 2005, 02:40:59 PM »
Okay, stacer summed it up better when I asked for her to look my response over.

Quote
The difference between generally accepted facts and a new theory.


Now, if you saying that you think my opinion doesn't make sense, well . . . there's not much I can do about that, and nothing I'm willing to. ;)
" If i ever need a pen-name I'd choose EUOL, just to confuse everyone. " --Entropy

Skar

  • Moderator
  • Level 54
  • *****
  • Posts: 3979
  • Fell Points: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Writers and the Law
« Reply #44 on: January 13, 2005, 02:47:10 PM »
Ah, I see now, the difference between generally accepted facts and a new theory.

That line of reasoning makes sense but I think I'd have to come down on the other side.  History is history.  Just because it happens to be innovative history doesn't give the scholars the right to patent it anymore than that right is conferred upon those whose work is in line with the traditional views.
"Skar is the kind of bird who, when you try to kill him with a stone, uses it, and the other bird, to take vengeance on you in a swirling melee of death."

-Fellfrosch