isahbiazharMar 28th, 2007 - 20:25:32

Authors should be allowed a certain amount of unknown plagiarism.One cannot avoid such a move because a novel can have overlapping ideas because as time wears out some original ideas are forgotten.If authors were to think of original ideasa many novels can never be written.The decision was apt.

Report this comment

kirikMar 28th, 2007 - 20:39:44

Brown straight copied their ideas. It is obvious to anyone who had any previous knowledge of the books. When I was reading Brown's novel, I thought, 'Hey, I read this before.'

Report this comment

valMar 28th, 2007 - 21:59:08

A novel, using material that is set in a factual basis, is still just that--a work of fiction. It is difficult to claim that a work (which you state as historical and factual) is something that no one else can use for as a basis of fiction. This was certainly not a case of plagarism. It is sour grapes from the authors of the non-fiction work because Dan Brown incorporated research, substantiated by the authors, into a mystery/thriller.

Report this comment

Leigh TeabingMar 29th, 2007 - 10:13:05

While there are plenty of correspondences between the two books (ridiculous conspiracy theories and dreadful literary style come to mind first - there's a lovely satire at www.asadodo.com which is well worth a glance) at least Brown knew what he was writing was fiction. I'd love to know who was advising Baigent and Leigh, it was obvious from the outset that they couldn't claim copyright in a mere idea under English law. The whole case was just a quick way to blow £3million on lawyers

Report this comment