PLEASE READ THESE FACTS FIRST:

  • Random House sued ME; not the other way around.
  • Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web.
  • There has been NO trial on the facts, only the Random House effort to prevent a trial.
  • The only sworn statements made under penalty of perjury are affidavits from me and my experts, nothing from RH.
  • The judge refused to consider any expert analysis.
  • Despite suing me first, Random House & Sony UNsuccessfully demanded that I pay the $310,000 in legal fees they spent to sue me.
  • Contrary to the Random House spin, I am not alleging plagiarism of general issues, but of several hundred very specific ones.
  • This is not about money. Anything I win goes to charity.

Legal filings and the expert witness reports are HERE

I have a second blog, Writopia
which focuses on Dan Brown's pattern of falsehoods
and embellishment of his personal achievements.


Saturday, August 06, 2005

Code NOT "Cleared" of Plagiarism.

Far from it.

But it's interesting to read the headlines about how Judge Daniels has "cleared" The Da Vinci Code of plagiarism.

The fact is that Daniels' decision -- an opinion by one person on one day -- went along with Random House to deny this issue the trial by jury that it deserves. But, as you'll see below, nothing's been "cleared."

Daniels made a mistake. He's a brilliant man, but he is not perfect. That's why we have appeals courts. This earlier post, "2nd Circuit Appeals Court Decision Supports the Notion That a Trial Is Needed" outlines the governing precedent:

(1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."

(2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."

(3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."

The continuing disagreement among lay readers proves that there are genuine issues of material fact.

And number three clearly means that Daniels did not "clear" Random House, Da Vinci Code or Dan Brown of plagiarism. He simply made a mistake as regarding genuine issues of material fact.

So, this isn't over. It's hardly begun.

8 Comments:

Blogger SillyBahrainiGirl said...

i hate it when people steal what i write..
i know how u feel ;)

Sat Aug 06, 02:12:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Not a very good feeling. Not at all.

Sat Aug 06, 02:17:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Christian said...

Well reading the expert opinion you rely on as proof of copying I have to say that I guess if you win an appeal you and Dan will both have to face trial for having stolen the basic concepts of the Indiana Jones character for your respective heroes.

Sat Aug 06, 03:58:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Andking47 said...

Well, I would have to say that I respect what you are doing in defending your work, but I do not think that the similarities in your literature and Brown's to be protected by copyright. I wish it was to say that you could copyright ideas on the devine feminine but that would be the same as saying you could copyright other general ideas. If you could do such then certain interlaying themes and phrases from books in the past would be protected, and sad to say, many books would then be infringing copyright. So, I think that in no way has he "stolen" your work and you should be happy that some of the general ideas shared in the works have become so well known and spreading through Mr. Browns books. Jealousy does exist.

Sat Aug 06, 04:25:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

There is obviously a deep difference of opinion here. That much is clear.

Christian: one cannot copyright a "concept." One can only copyright "expression."

When it comes to the hero, Brown provably copied the specifics of my characters. But neither of us copied the specifics of Indiana Jones.

andking47: I agree with you. I have never claimed any sort of copyright on historical concepts, religion etc.

What Brown copied was my way of "expressing" those ... and there are literally hundreds of those. As just one example, my "expression" of Gnosticism does _not_ appear in any historical or theological work on Gnosticism. In one sense, I created a "sect" of Gnosticism that never existed. Brown's expression of Gnosticism was not something from a common historical work, but from MY expression.

There are many examples of that.

Sat Aug 06, 05:02:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

There are two clear-cut things here:

1. Why, in all of this and despite our requests, would Random House NOT allow Dan Brown to file an affidavit under oath that he did NOT plagiarize me?

2. There is a controversy and a difference of opinion about all of this. The federal rules require a trial in those instances. The judge should have granted a trial.

Sat Aug 06, 05:04:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Mark said...

My infringer, if that's what he turns out to be wouldn't answer that question either. In law, say nothing if you're involved.

Expression co-opting without actual copying is a difficult thing to prove for anyone.

Sat Aug 06, 06:42:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Lewis Perdue said...

Yes, Mark, I agree. A tough thing. But that is why we had experts and that is why Judge Daniels made a mistake by excluding them.

Sun Aug 07, 09:39:00 AM PDT  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home