When does using someone else’s research become an adaptation?

I had overlooked the following news until reader and librarian Jessamyn West brought it to my attention. She wrote, “A fascinating book-type-drama hit the internet this week with Tillie Walden’s new graphic novel Charity & Sylvia, the Vermont Reads book for this year [published by Drawn & Quarterly], getting a lot of pushback from an author of a historical monograph [from Oxford University Press] titled exactly the same thing.” Based on the graphic novel’s online bibliography, the graphic novel drew heavily from the narrative presented in the monograph.

Left: Charity & Sylvia, the graphic novel by Tillie Walden, published by Drawn & Quarterly in 2026, which retails for $30. Right: Charity & Sylvia, the historical monograph by Rachel Hope Cleves, first published by Oxford University Press in 2014, which retails for $22.99 in paperback format.

West notes that the drama started when historian Rachel Hope Cleves, the author of the monograph, posted an open letter expressing her disappointment about the situation. Shortly thereafter, Comics Beat published a balanced look at the disagreement, although Walden has not commented.

West says, “People definitely chose sides. The publisher’s statements maybe didn’t help? … It really does touch on the interesting idea of what it means to do research and what it means to use someone else’s research in your own work. How much is okay and how much is adapting, especially with a graphic novel? And a lot of moving parts in here: original author, the museum the graphic novel is based on, Vermont Humanities…”

Publishers Weekly briefly reported on this case; in a January interview with PW, Walden explained that her role as cartoonist laureate of Vermont involves creating comics depicting important events in the state. It was the executive director of Vermont Humanities who approached her about doing Charity & Sylvia.

It doesn’t help anyone that both books carry the same title and have similar covers, very much making Walden’s graphic novel seem like an adaptation, i.e., a recasting of an original work into a different form or medium—such as a novel into a film, play, or graphic novel. The copyright holder of the original work typically controls adaptation rights and licenses them separately from publication rights.

However, historical facts and interpretations aren’t copyrightable, even original ones you are the first to uncover. Research findings live in the public domain, and only specific expression is protected. Some may recall a similar case from a couple decades ago, when the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail claimed that Dan Brown lifted their historical architecture for his novel The Da Vinci Code. But a UK court rejected the claim because you can’t copyright a theory or a research thesis. It’s the structure imposed on events—the selection, arrangement, and pacing—that’s protected expression if it reflects authorial choice and not chronology. Whether Walden’s work constitutes infringement is a complicated question that, in my opinion, only a court could decide, as it depends on countless details related to what was taken, how much was taken, and how central it was.

Walden mentions and cites Cleves’s work in the afterword of her novel, in addition to many mentions of Cleves in her bibliography at her website. But a big part of what has upset Cleves is that Walden hasn’t been generously crediting Cleves in press and publicity appearances. Cleves writes in her open letter, “It saddens me that Walden’s media blitz will make my book harder for readers to find, not easier, and diminish its continuing power … .”

Currently Cleves is asking for an option for adaptation and co-credit with compensation. West wrote me, “They are both very talented people who would otherwise be on the same ‘side’ of this, wanting to tell the stories of Charity and Sylvia, so I’m sorry this went this way.” I’ll be following future developments.