Posted on 03/01/2006 8:09:12 AM PST by stainlessbanner
LONDON (Reuters) - Author Dan Brown did not copy material from an earlier book when he wrote "The Da Vinci Code", his best-selling religious thriller at the center of a copyright case, a lawyer told London's High Court on Tuesday.
With over 36 million copies of his novel in circulation and a major Hollywood adaptation due for release in May, the stakes are high in a case brought against Brown's British publishers by historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.
In opening arguments for the defense, publisher Random House said that much of the "central theme" of "The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail", which the authors say has been plagiarized, did not in fact appear in The Da Vinci Code.
"A further difficulty for the claimant is that The Da Vinci Code doesn't actually have many of the points of the central theme," said the publisher's lawyer, John Baldwin. "We say that's fatal to their case."
On the second day of the trial, with Brown again present in court, Baldwin also argued that the ideas the historians were seeking to protect were too general.
"The claimants' claim relates to ideas at a high level of generality, which copyright does not protect," the publishers said in a document outlining their case.
They add that the complaint appears to center on the idea in The Holy Blood book that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, they had children who survived and married into a line of French kings, that the lineage continues today and that a secret society based in France aims to restore the lineage to the thrones of Europe.
"The claimants contend that their idea is protected by copyright, whereas Random contend there is no copyright in information of this nature, and that in any event there was no copying," the publisher said.
BROWN ACKNOWLEDGES SOURCE
The case has generated considerable media interest, both because it involves one of the world's most successful authors and because it pits the rights of an author to use existing research against protection of non-fiction writers behind it.
Commentators point out that a character in 41-year-old Brown's book, Sir Leigh Teabing, has a name that is an anagram of Leigh and Baigent. A third author of the 1982 book, Henry Lincoln, has decided to stay out of the action.
The defense admits that Brown looked at The Holy Blood book, also published by Random House and a bestseller in its own right, when he was writing his novel. In fact, the character Teabing refers to it in the narrative.
But lawyers argue that he had already written a synopsis of The Da Vinci Code before either he or his wife ever looked at the other work. Brown's wife does some of his research for him.
Last August, Brown won a court ruling against another writer, Lewis Perdue, who claimed The Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels, "Daughter of God" and "The Da Vinci Legacy".
Perdue had sought $150 million in damages and asked the court to block distribution of the book and movie adaptation, which features Tom Hanks and French actress Audrey Tautou.
The current case is scheduled to last up to three weeks, Brown may take the witness stand some time next week. The hearings have been adjourned until next Tuesday to allow the judge time to read the books and other related material.
Brown clearly used Baigent's concept, but wrote a whole new plot.
They have no case.
I can't wait to see the movie. My husband read the book. I am reading Angels and Demons now, it is by same author.
I tried it and found it slow-going after The Code. Never finished it or State of Fear! This is the first I've heard of the lawsuit. I thought The Code was a great book and oddly was not offended by it, even as a Christian.
"Holy Blood,Holy Grail".Interesting book.I can't attest to the veracity of the author's assertion(s),but it reads like a good mystery.Have to ck out "The DaVinci Code".
Let's riot over this blasphemy and kill the authors!
Oh wait, nevermind, we're not Muslim.
:)
Back to the topic, I think the first author is just trying to cash in on the fact that someone else made more money off the basic idea than he did.
You cannot copyright ideas, but our absurd patent system might have let him patent it.
The DaVinci Code was so badly written that I couldn't get past the first few pages. As a writer, I feel dismayed by the inept prose of so many best-sellers.
Oh, I do agree. I was looking forward to a good read,(Da Vinci Code) but it was so poorly written even the intriguing idea got dead from Brown's writing.
Concur on both points. I have an old copy of HBHG that I read years ago. When I first heard of DVC, it sprang to mind & I dug it out & reread portions before reading DVC. I didn't know if the original authors were even still alive, but I knew they had a great plagiarism lawsuit if they were. I was happy when they filed it. This was far more blatant than Alex Haley's Roots plagiarism.
You do know Brown laughs all the way to the bank!
And I suspect antiRepublicrat is correct: ideas are not copyrightable.
You might find this rticle interesting.
Amen!
Since when do original ideas count for anything?
Stealing is stealing is stealing.
I can't wait to see the movie. My husband read the book. I am reading Angels and Demons now, it is by same author.
I am looking so forward to seeing this movie also. First Tom Hanks is a great Actor and the book is superb. I think this year Hollywood just might start making money. LOL.
"Oddly" is an understatement. The book portrays an unrisen Christ marrying Mary Magdalene. All the book does is take a shot at the divinity of Christ, and the legitimacy of Chrisianity itself. So it is odd that that didn't offend you, maybe you should read 1 Corinthians 13-16:
13But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. 19If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable. 20But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept. 21For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. 22For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 23But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
Thanks for the harsh words. I would hasten to point out that even Brown never claimed it to be anything more than a work of FICTION.
While I was not offended, neither did I take it for gospel! Like I said, I'm a Christian. One who believes I should 'judge not, lest I be judged!'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.