Poetry Time!

From Robert S. Ryan, via the Law-Lib mailing list, by way of LU: The Lovesong of A. Radical Librarian

Stop that bestselling author! He stole our Holy Blood!

So say Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent, co-authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a 1982 book which proposed the historical theory that Mary Magdalene was the wife of Jesus Christ and the mother of his child (or children), and that early Christian sects and groups like the Knights Templar sought to preserve and protect this knowledge against the repressive tactics of the Catholic church. According to a lawsuit recently filed in London, they claim that Dan Brown, bestselling now-billionaire author of The Da Vinci Code, stole their ideas.

It's fairly obvious to anyone who's glanced at both books that Brown bases his plot on some of the same historical theories. One character, whose name is arguably an anagram of the two authors' names, explicitly mentions their book, commenting "the authors made some dubious leaps of faith in their analysis, but their fundamental premise is sound."

But did Brown actually copy anything under legal protection? The website of the British Patent Office clearly states, in its definition of copyright, that "copyright does not protect ideas. It protects the way the idea is expressed in a piece of work, but it does not protect the idea itself." A similar principle is asserted in US Copyright law.

If this is in fact the case, and if Leigh and Baigent cannot plausibly show that Brown actually lifted their prose rather than just using their historical theories as the basis for a fictional potboiler, then why hasn't this case been tossed out already? Do British courts lack a mechanism for dismissing cases with no legal or factual merit?

By way of analogy: if a historian were to write a nonfiction book proposing, or even proving, that Abraham Lincoln was gay, or that Richard III did or did not murder the two little princes in the Tower of London, or some other sensational historical theory, they would own a copyright over the actual words of the book in which they published that theory, but they would have no legal right to prohibit other historians from discussing that theory or the facts that they cited to support it. Nor would they have a legal right to prevent novelists from writing potboiling fictional treatments featuring Gay Abe or Bloody Richard or Good King Dick, respectively. Historical facts and personages are not copyrightable.

Furthermore, it seems unlikely that L. & B. could show economic harm even if Brown had infringed on their work. If anything, the Da Vinci frenzy has boosted the sales of their somewhat turgidly written book.

A further curiosity: both authors' books are published by Random House.

So. Is this a real lawsuit, or just a Barnumesque publicity stunt? And if it's a real lawsuit, why hasn't it been dismissed as frivolous?

And why haven't the two suing authors figured out that, if anything, Brown has done them a favor by launching their eccentric theory into the center of public consciousness? They could make a fortune just by going on a lecturing tour, or making a video documentary version of Holy Blood Holy Grail.

That, I suppose, would make too much sense.

A preview

A beta-version of Google Print is availble as of today. So far, it's limited to public-domain texts, according to this story.

However....

The two books I looked up (Jurgen, by Cabell, and The King in Yellow, by Robert Chambers) showed up in recent reprint editions, complete with introductions and cover art which could still be under copyright. Seems to me that, rightly or wrongly, this might raise some intellectual property issues. Perhaps they should be scanning the original editions instead?

Recognition where recognition is due

All hail the 2005 Ig Nobel Awards!

It's good to know that some Really Useful Research is being done. If a college student ever needs to know the speed of a human being swimming through syrup, or find a hydrodynamic analysis of penguin poop, I now know where to send them. And if anyone at the public library needs replacement dog testicles, the holder of US Patent #5868140 will be pleased to supply them.

It's good to see also that Clocky is finally getting some respect. The shag-carpet Clocky has a certain appeal redolent of decrepit student apartments (does it smell faintly of old beer-and-pizza vomit?). However, Ms. Nanda may want to consider alternate esthetic strategies as well. I envision "Clocky" with a customizable fitting that would allow the user to attach an image of his or her own choosing, so that one could start the day by chasing down and kicking or stomping on a boss, a favorite politician, etc.

The wheels will need to be sturdier, also. The current model looks like it would come apart with one good stomp, or even a misguided lurch out of bed. (Ring! Ring! Ring! ... rollrollroll... Ringringring!... ... *crunch*. Bye bye Clocky.)

The current model would make a good cat toy, though.

Meanwhile, back in Europe....

Breaking America's grip on the net [from The Guardian]

EU to follow Google's lead with online library [from The Register]

Not much choice there...

A reporter on CNN just said she found it worrisome that people evacuating Galveston, Texas, in the path of the oncoming hurricane Rita, were driving toward Houston, another city in the path of the hurricane.

Just where, exactly, does she suggest that they go instead, given this rather inconvenient fact?

To be bad, or not to be bad?

Debatable job-interview advice from a a pseudonymous seeker.

Mr. Barton won't be happy with this.

Researchers report that the number of intense hurricanes is increasing worldwide, a finding which is consistent with the projected consequences of global warming. Do they have their income tax returns for the past twenty years, current contact information and security clearance ratings of every person with which they've discussed their research, and the blood types of their extended family relations readily available for Mr. Barton's inquisitors to peruse on demand?