Historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are claiming that the American novelist Dan Brown, author of "The Da Vinci Code", plagiarised themes and ideas they explored in their 1982 book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" . The case went on trial today in London and is expected to last two weeks.
Having read both books, I know for a fact that the main pillar in Dan Brown's book is precisely the very same theory that was presented by Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln, after a decade of research, in "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail". The only difference between the two is that Dan Brown's work has a bunch of flowers and cryptograms to sweeten the pill and the other's academic historical research style makes it much more difficult to read.
But I have to agree with the former Man Booker Prize judge who said: 'Baigent and Leigh are not going to win. I don't think plagiarism any longer holds up - we live in a world of cut and paste, and in a global village. Creativity is always a beautifully arranged patchwork that nudges something a little further on'.