Does a fiction author have to credit theories of a non-fiction writer?

Question

I am referring to a nice work by Dan Brown, Da vinci code, in which he's involved in a litigation regarding some theoretical backdrop info (actually the crux of the novel) that he did not credit to some british nonfiction writers who published their book years ago under, ironically the same publisher, Random house. It seems the better route (monetarily and fame-wise) to present one's ficiton as original, yet ethically.... he should have footnoted or something. Would his fame have been any less had he simply footnoted and gave credit? Did he simply forget?

Answer 1

It is best practice (aside from being common courtesy) to credit your sources. All writers borrow from others to some degree and it's helpful for readers with an interest in the topic to have more sources to follow up.

However, please bear in mind that as a result of this court case, Random House have gained massive free publicity for not one, but two, of their books. Perhaps in this case 'forgetfulness' turned out to be a great marketing bonus.

Answer 2

The litigation was groundless and was dismissed. If I write a book in which a character drops a note that falls to the ground should I credit Newton for his work on gravity? If you want to see footnotes read the Wasteland or an academic article. Footnotes are distracting in fiction unless they are used as part of the form.

Answer 3

Dan Brown was wrong. The book you are refering to is "Holy Blood, Holy Grail". Brown stole the entire premise from that book for the "Da Vinci Code". I believe that the courts were wrong in not awarding damages. I have read both books. Except for the action that "Da Vinci Code" added, it was almost like reading the same book twice. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is a much better read then the "Da Vinci Code".

Answer 4

I think it would have been the ethical thing for Dan Brown to acknowledge his debt to Baigent and Leigh for the ideas in "The Da Vinci Code", but a court has already decided that he was not guilty of copyright violation. This was partly due to the nature of the suit - the authors of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" claimed that Brown had stolen the theme of their book, not just used its facts. The judge ruled that the earlier book did not in fact develop the theme.

I think Brown did make passing reference to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in his novel, but a formal thanks in the front of the book would have been better.