My readers who read Dan Brown’s novel “Origin” published on October 3, 2017 called me and said “We were under the impression that we were reading your books while reading ‘Origin’ novel of Dan Brown.” Thereupon, I purchased the book. I was shocked when I read the constituent elements of my original works for which I own the copyright. I quickly realized crucial similarities in regard to purpose and fiction of the book, pattern of the stories, characters, the scenes used, the celebrities featured, findings and predictions. I felt as if I was reading my own books, articles, seminar videos and my own life. This comparison revealed over 300 similarities which made me deduce the emergence of copyright infringement. The similarities were so extensive and striking that my readers had made out the reproduction without my permission (copyright infringement).

On August 18th 2018, I warned the publishing house (New York) and Dan Brown about the possible copyright infringement in the content of Origin in good faith. I sent (1) 129 items of the comparative similarity table which demonstrates the copyright infringement, (2) a copy of my books where the relevant parts marked, and (3) a cover letter that explains the issue, to Executive Editor and Dan Brown separately for their review. Even though I was not obliged, I provided most of the available information and documents in good faith during the correspondences which took about one year. As concrete clues, (1) I shared the comparative similarity table with 348 items in the form of 129-item, 214-item and 300-item tables. I sent (2) Dan Brown’s statements, (3) Comments of the columnists who follows Dan Brown closely, and (4) the fundamental grounds in examples of similar lawsuits and key points of the law on intellectual and artistic works

Despite the concrete findings fortified with the information, documents and the bilateral comparative table shared by me in correspondences, we sadly made no headway with the attorney of publishing house. I even proposed meeting face to face in New York to bring out the truth. The attorney attempted to hinder my struggle by trying to make me believe that I am in the wrong with the statements “there is a likeness, but it is a coincidence” and “plagiarism or copyright infringement is out of the question”. Nevertheless, he accepted the likeness explicitly by qualifying the 300-item bilateral likeness table as “COINCIDENCE”.

Dan Brown says, through Prof. Langdon, for the definition of coincidence, which the publishing house counsellor used to explain hundreds of similarities, that "there is no COINCIDENCE, only connections may be invisible."

‘Le capitaine was pleased to discover you were still in Paris tonight,’ the agent said, speaking for the first time since they’d left the hotel. ‘A fortune coincidence.’

“Langdon was feeling anything but fortunate, and coincidence was a concept he did not entirely trust. As someone who had spent his life exploring the hidden interconnectivity of disparate emblems and ideologies, Langdon viewed the world as a web of profoundly intertwined histories and events. The connections may be invisible, he often preached to his symbology classes at Harvard, but they are always there, buried just beneath the surface.” (Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code, Chapter 3)

In case of any confusion regarding ownership of a work, everything should be manifested to reveal the truth. Learning the truth is the right of readers as well. Real owner of the ideas needs to be found. This subject is not just related to compensation. It is of capital importance for human emotions. I could not start to write my new book, even begin my new life for a long time due to not finalizing this issue. My intention is to elicit the truth before you. I could not get ahead in this subject, yet although I shared all data I have. There is nothing I can do other than this option. I think that this book which also includes technological evaluations will arouse the interest of judges, prosecutors, attorneys, academicians and readers as well as the authors who went through or will go through similar problems. All my life, I assessed such obstacles as challenging influences which improve me. I would not move on by shutting my eyes to the injustice about my works to which I devoted my life to. I had to get my due. I pursued the other details to back my rightfulness. Such broad transfer of ideas had to involve other clues. A deeper and more detailed search allowed me to find these clues.

The aim of this book is (1) to present the readers the bilateral likeness table with 348 items that compare Dan Brown’s “Origin” book published in 2017 and my articles and videos, and ask their opinions (2) to indicate why Dan Brown had to quote, in light of his explanations before and during the writing process of “Origin” and after its publication.

My intention was not to offend Dan Brown or the publishing house, therefore I did my best to settle the matter with consensus. I hadn’t taken legal action, yet. In addition, I hadn’t announced press and media the process of claiming my right which would last about four years and gain worldwide attention. I think of commencing the lawsuit process after your possible contributions to the information and documents shared in this book.

AYDIN TÜRKGÜCÜ

(2015-2017 Nobel Peace Prize Nominee)