The Da Vinci Case, Part Two

In the wake of the recent Da Vinci Case verdict, it seems to be open season for arrant stupidity.

A Russian art historian has accused The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown of plagiarism, just days after a British court rejected a similar claim.

Mikhail Anikin, from St Petersburg, said he would sue Brown if he did not receive an apology and compensation.

He claims Brown stole his idea that Leonardo Da Vinci was also a theologian and his Mona Lisa portrait was an allegory for the Christian Church.

I am beginning to wonder just how our ancestors rubbed enough brain cells together to scramble down from the trees – given the level of tommyrot trotted out by people who clearly should know better. Yes, indeed it would be nice as Mikhail requested, to be credited for ones ideas:

Mr Anikin, a Da Vinci expert at the Hermitage Museum, said he had shared his ideas with colleagues at a museum in Houston, Texas, in 1998.

He said one of the them had asked if he could pass on the ideas to a friend who wrote detective novels.

“I gave permission, but asked that this author indicate in his book that the idea had been mine,” Mr Anikin told Agence France Presse.

Nice, yes, but not essential. Mikhail, if you are, by some remote chance, reading this, do yourself a huge favour and save yourself a wad of money and repeat after me:

There is no copyright on ideas, there is no copyright on ideas, there is no copyright on ideas…

Got it?

Now playing: The EaglesLyin Eyes