Dan: I saw the same concerns expressed by some professional organization for stock photographers (linked to by a graphic design blog), so authors aren’t the only ones concerned about this. It confused me, so I asked the aforementioned fellow studying IP law. Apparently, IP nerds are all about this bill because it actually relaxes restrictions so the non-commercial standard should be applied across the board, regardless of use. He told me to go read the law itself, and I did, and you could certainly read it that way … but I’m not clear if it was intended to be read that way.

Are you under any obligation to ‘list your sources’ of information?

-Jordan

Odd. The sense I get from what I’ve read has been almost the exact opposite, though I suppose it could be biased since it was from the Author’s Guild. They claim “One of the important protections for writers using others’ trademarks is section 43(c)(4)(B) of the Lanham Act, which excludes noncommercial and news reporting uses from several types of liability under trademark law. The new law would weaken these protections, exposing writers to greater potential liability for their use of trademarks. ” (Source). Have you seen any other commentary on it?

Jordan: To a certain extent, I’m being a snob. The Da Vinci Code is hardly the worst book ever written, but neither is it the best thing since fork-split English muffins. Sometimes, I just find myself utterly bemused by the stratospheric heights its reached. I mean, the book is so popular that it hasn’t been released in paperback in the US, because the publishers are milking totally higher profits from continuing to sell the hardcover. This, for a book that was released nigh on three years ago. I guess I just wish standards were higher. I must be getting old.

The historians have no case unless they can demonstrate that Brown somehow stole their actual writing. If he ripped off their actual wording, it would clearly be plagiarism; if he lifted the structure of the story from their book or actual scenes they dreamed up (admittedly as speculation), it might also be plagiarism; if he was just inspired by a book they insist is actually history, they haven’t a leg to stand on, because then the historical events are considered information, and you can’t copyright the information itself in a resource like a history book. (Or a phone book, for that matter—yes, you could legally go and take all the names and phone numbers from the phone book and start your own phone book, as long as you presented it differently.)

I’m confused as to why creative professionals are so concerned about this trademark bill. The IP expert-to-be in my office tells me that the new bill is better because it now extends the same protection that non-commercial works once had to all works. That’s a good thing.

I personally liked the DaVinci code. It wasn’t one of my favorite books ever, but I could not put it down once I started reading it. That’s unusual for me and reading. Getting though books is usually a struggle. I’m not saying it was a literary masterpiece, but it kept me entertained. (This certainly says more about my low standards than about the quality of the book, but the end result is the same). Incidentally, I was caught off guard by the same sentence about the mysterious luggage, but I just laughed and read the next five chapters anyways.

As far as copyright infringement… I totally agree with what you said about their case, but I have a question. If the book that Brown allegedly copied from had been non-fiction, and a significant portion of Brown’s reasearch was based on that book, is Brown under any obligation to “cite” them? (I’m thinking of this from an academic perspective…)