'Da Vinci Code' publisher triumphs!

[Dashken]

Writers and copyright lawyers breathed more easily yesterday after a High Court judge ruled that The Da Vinci Code, the bestselling thriller by Dan Brown, had not stolen core ideas from an earlier non-fiction work.

Mr Justice Peter Smith rejected the high-profile copyright infringement claim brought by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, two of the three authors of a 1980s book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, against Random House, publisher of The Da Vinci Code.

The authors had argued that Mr Brown appropriated "central themes" from their earlier work, in particular 15 main points ranging from the notion that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had children to the idea that this "bloodline" resurfaced in the Merovingian dynasty and was then protected by the Priory of Sion.

But yesterday the judge said these central themes were "an artificial creation for the purposes of the litigation, working back from the 'DVC'" and merely "a selective number of facts and ideas" artificially ex-tracted from the earlier book.

Rather, he said, what had been original in "Holy Blood" was the idea that the Jesus/Mary Magdalene blo-odline and the Merovingian bloodline merged and that if there was a "central theme" this was it.

But he continued: "As such it is self-evident in my view that is an idea which is of too general level of an abstraction to be capable of protection . . . The claimants simply do not reveal how they came to their idea, or conjecture as they prefer to call it. It not being revealed, it cannot be appropriated."

The judgment, however, did not go entirely in Random House's favour. Mr Justice Smith did find that Dan Brown and Blythe, his researcher wife, had acq-uired and read "Holy Blood" earlier in the writing process than the author stated - and that it was the primary book used when Sir Leigh Teabing, one of The Da Vinci Code characters, lectures on what he terms "the greatest cover-up in human history". Leigh Teabing was admitted to be an anagram ofthe "Holy Blood" authors' surnames, which Mr Brown, an American, described as "a playful tribute".

"I regard the suggestion that Mr Brown and Blythe Brown created the Langdon/Teabing lectures from other sources as completely unsustainable . . . The conclusion is irresistible. Blythe Brown provided the material for the lectures with 'HBHG' in her hands," the judge said.

Although most intellectual property lawyers always viewed the Leigh/Baigent claim as highly ambitious, many said yesterday that it was still useful to have copyright parameters restated.

Paul Telford, at law firm Allen & Overy, said: "Common sense has prevailed and copyright lawyers can relax in the knowledge that the boundaries of plagiarism have not been redefined. If the claimants had won, lawyers would have had to rethink their approach to the accepted wisdom that themes and ideas are not protected by copyright."

Thomas Hays, at Lewis Silkin, said: "The ruling is excellent news for genre authors the world over . . . it reaffirms an author's right and freedom to work within the bounds of established forms."

The judge made it clear that he viewed the defendants' failure to call Blythe Brown as a witness as regrettable - "her evidence could have assisted significantly in explaining how various documents were created" and that there were some "failures" in Dan Brown's evidence.

But his assessment of Mr Baigent was much harsher. Calling him a "poor witness" did "not in my view do justice to the inadequacy of Mr Baigent's performance", said the judge, as he concluded that he could place no reliance on what the author said. Mr Baigent's evidence was "comprehensively dest-royed" on cross-examination, he added.

The judge ordered the claimants to pay 85 per cent of Random House's costs, estimated at £1.3m.

Nevertheless, Mr Leigh said outside court: "I think we lost on the letter. We won on the spirit andto that extent we are vindicated."

A statement on behalf of the authors also suggested that they would consider appealing.

Source: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/39884f7c-c6...0779e2340.html

[MoonMaiden]

I'm looking forward to watching The Da Vinci Code, but probably not until it comes out on DVD.

I'm glad the publisher won the suit. I just read another article about the movie this morning. There's controversy about it on alot of fronts ... from the Catholic Church, from white albinos, from Paris and The Louvre, etc.

[Arctic]

Originally Posted by MoonMaiden

I'm looking forward to watching The Da Vinci Code, but probably not until it comes out on DVD.

I'm glad the publisher won the suit. I just read another article about the movie this morning. There's controversy about it on alot of fronts ... from the Catholic Church, from white albinos, from Paris and The Louvre, etc.

Should be good to see it on dvd, yep...but also I keep seeing this thing about it on the history channel - any good?

[Adrian Wong]

Originally Posted by Arctic

Should be good to see it on dvd, yep...but also I keep seeing this thing about it on the history channel - any good?

I think you are referring to the documentary on the issue? Well, they were just rehashing the same stuff we have been reading about.