LennyeTran wrote:It's funny to me how they use those as their evidence.
LOL To me they do not have any evidence. They just want their share of the delicious cake Dan is tasting
I can't wait to see the movie!!
tikay wrote:A list of referance is no good without permission. All plagerism is...is not having gotten the proper authority from other authors when you use their wording. If he had asked for permission and they refused to give it this may be the problem.
Dixie wrote:LennyeTran wrote:I've watched a documentary about the DaVinci code, and they did mention something about the holy blood and the holy grail. That book came way before the da vinci code. That's why they said he's stealing their work. I'll check for this info again.
I downloaded a documentary about it not long ago. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail talked about their book and The Da Vinci Code, and other authors as well. They didn't seem very happy with Brown's novel. I remember one of them talking about the postures of Christ and Mary Magdalene in Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" and saying something like "...which we first pointed out, not Mr. Brown".
I don't see what the fuss is all about anyway. I'm going to get The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail so I can figure out. I never thought both books could be compared. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is the result of an exhaustive research, whereas Brown's just a fictional novel based on that info.
I guess they also want their share of the cake
LennyeTran wrote:tikay wrote:A list of referance is no good without permission. All plagerism is...is not having gotten the proper authority from other authors when you use their wording. If he had asked for permission and they refused to give it this may be the problem.
This is what I'm thinking, too. I don't think he wouldn't ask for their permission to use their work as a reference for his book. I mean, the guy should know better since he's a writer. And the wikipedia article said,
"In the book Brown also mentions Holy Blood, Holy Grail as an acclaimed international bestseller (chapter 60) and claims it as the major contributor to his hypothesis."
He did mention them and gave out the source. I wonder they're going for this case because their permission to him was verbal; therefore, they could say he never actually asked them for their permission?
LennyeTran wrote:"Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," sued Random House, which also published their book. Random House denies the claim.
Baigent and Leigh claim Brown appropriated their ideas and themes in writing his book, which has sold more than 25 million copies worldwide since its 2003 publication. "
This is from the Yahoo news link that I copied and pasted in page two. So, to me Brown had their permission to use their book as a source. Therefore, their lawyer said,
"Jonathan Rayner James, a lawyer for Baigent and Leigh, said [b]the case did not relate to the theft of specific parts of text but to the appropriation of themes and ideas.[/b]"Brown copied from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' and therefore the publication of the resulting novel is an infringement of my clients' copyright," he told the court. "
They're suing him for extending their, as others called, pseudohistory idea about Jesus.
tikay wrote:Okay now we are getting somewhere!
This is utterly ridiculous! They cant sue for such a thing because they have no monopoly on thoughts.... and on all other histories of such thoughts....the books they studied to get their notions about this? The so called "pseudo" history is not theirs alone...it belongs to every living being, they merely wrote a book on the subject after many had already been written on such things....just look up the subject in amazon.com and you will be led to hundreds of books... for crying out loud! Are they trying to say no one ever thought of the theory before. GOODNESS....they are the fools then. Let them waste their time in court because Dan will just win, and be assured he will win if this is why they are suing. They would have to prove the impossible that no one even considered these things, before their book was written....fat chance there.
LennyeTran wrote:Now I'm just afraid that they would withdraw what they said about Dan not stealing their source, you know. If they said Dan never asked their permission or they never granted theirs, then Dan could be in big trouble. Don't you think?
ahmads wrote:This is the first time I participate here in this section,,
actualy I don't like reading very much ..from books
I read about history and technology and about biology .
But I want to read this book ,,I have searched for it to buy it in libraries but Don't ask me why??
yesterday I downloaded it from internet ,,Arabic edition ..
I just know the main Idea ... but it is very big .
LennyeTran wrote:I have this book in English online. If you wanna read it in English, I can send it to your email.
LennyeTran wrote:ahmads wrote:It will be very nice from you
My email :firstname.lastname@example.org or
I have one rose for you
Okay, the file is already sent.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests