davinci code

It seems the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail are suing the publisher of Dan Brown's The DaVinci Code. Holy Blood, Holy Grail is a non-fiction work based on presumably years of research--The DaVinci Code is a work of fiction based in part on the research of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, other sources, and lots of imagination. I just don't understand the basis of this lawsuit. Dan Brown hasn't claimed the research as his own, in fact I don't think he's claimed to have done any original research at all. He uses research of others--experts in their respective fields. Isn't that the way it's supposed to work? As a researcher myself, I want nothing more than for other people to use my work. Not claim it as their own, but use it certainly. At the same time, once I put my research out their, I have no control over how people use it--whether to continue in the direction I was heading or to further their own hair-brained ideas.

I can't help but think the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail are trying to usurp some of Dan Brown's new found wealth. Their book was published over twenty years ago, and while it has surely seen a resurgence in the wake of The DaVinci Code, it can't even come close to the success Dan Brown is experiencing. But alas, such is the fate of the scholar and the novelist. Get over it.

As a side note: I have read The DaVinci Code and loved it. I have yet to read Holy Blood, Holy Grail, but plan to as soon as I find the time--only because of the curiosity The DaVinci Code stirred up. (Hat tip: Boing Boing)