Welcome to Writers Talkback. If you are a new user, your account will have to be approved manually to prevent spam. Please bear with us in the meantime
So, common sense appears to have won, and of course the lawyers benefit. Litigation always brings increases in sales, and Dan Brown only appears to be one up in sales because he has more books written.
I'm relieved that the case was found in Random's favour, as the reverse would have made my life and that of any historical novelist difficult.
We can't go back in time and find out what actual people were thinking and how they were acting; so we have to rely on documentary evidence, which is not always accessible to the ordinary writer, except by the work done by academics and published in their own books.They will have their theories and often they will coincide with another person's view. It doesn't make it plaguerism.
No story has an original plot, the originality is in how you present that plot. Bridget Jones is Pride and Prejudice in a modern guise, and I'm sure we can all think of others.
I haven't read the books involved,nor will I be doing so. I've only heard one short passage read aloud, and that was more than enough!
I think they were trying to get round it by bending the practice of the law- set a new precedent.
But the best bit is, there is going to be a case brought by a Russian, who claims that he suggested a few of the ideas, re the Mona Lisa representing whatever ir was, and suggesting the title.
He claims that a few years before, at a conference, a delegate asked if he would mind if he passed this onto an author friend. He didn't object as long as the author acknowledged that it came from him.
His mistake was giving that permission to a third party, and then expecting the end user to honour it.
I can see that going the same way as the other case, if it comes to court.
Lesson: If you have a good idea, don't tell anyone until it's too late for them to do anything with it!
Apparently a church in Rome that is undergoing some restoration work by contractors, had a large poster covering the front of the scaffolding. It's the Mona Lisa in the background advertising the film of the DVC.
Some people do get their knickers in a twist about things. I saw the item on the BBC, and at a distance you wouldn't realise what it was advertising- now everyone knows!
Good on the judge, I say. Puts it all in perspective.
I don't think I will be going to see the film Stan. I resent paying to fall asleep in the cinema!
Comments
I'm relieved that the case was found in Random's favour, as the reverse would have made my life and that of any historical novelist difficult.
We can't go back in time and find out what actual people were thinking and how they were acting; so we have to rely on documentary evidence, which is not always accessible to the ordinary writer, except by the work done by academics and published in their own books.They will have their theories and often they will coincide with another person's view. It doesn't make it plaguerism.
No story has an original plot, the originality is in how you present that plot. Bridget Jones is Pride and Prejudice in a modern guise, and I'm sure we can all think of others.
I haven't read the books involved,nor will I be doing so. I've only heard one short passage read aloud, and that was more than enough!
Opinions or yawns?
But the best bit is, there is going to be a case brought by a Russian, who claims that he suggested a few of the ideas, re the Mona Lisa representing whatever ir was, and suggesting the title.
He claims that a few years before, at a conference, a delegate asked if he would mind if he passed this onto an author friend. He didn't object as long as the author acknowledged that it came from him.
His mistake was giving that permission to a third party, and then expecting the end user to honour it.
I can see that going the same way as the other case, if it comes to court.
Lesson: If you have a good idea, don't tell anyone until it's too late for them to do anything with it!
Some people do get their knickers in a twist about things. I saw the item on the BBC, and at a distance you wouldn't realise what it was advertising- now everyone knows!
I don't think I will be going to see the film Stan. I resent paying to fall asleep in the cinema!