Some even fear that literature itself would be irreparably damaged by a precedent that prevents writers from basing their work on historical sources.
The only additions I would make to that statement are "on allegedly historical sources", and that my fear is that scholarship likewise is damaged in that one could not take up a hypothesis or even a relatively secure thesis and make it the basis for further research. If Leigh and Baigent's Holy Blood etc was fiction, I agree that they have a case, but as it purports to be a theory of fact [and maybe that's why Dan Brown presents the background to the Da Vinci code as fact?] I'm not sure copyright can or should cover it in the same way. Plagiarism maybe, though Brown isn't claiming originality...
The peril of opening this particular can of worms can be seen in a later bit of the report where it is said that it is...
... possible that Baigent and Leigh's own ideas were not in fact original, but culled from sources already in the public domain ... the theory that Jesus was married had first been aired in an article in this newspaper [The Observer] in 1971. He added: 'We say the claim relies on and seeks to monopolise ideas at such a high level of generality they are not protected by copyright.'
Hmmm, potentially hoist by their own petard.
Guardian Unlimited Books | Special Reports | Rebel theologian surfaces at heart of Da Vinci case:
Filed in: Da_Vinci_Code, Christian, gnostic, copyright
No comments:
Post a Comment