The judge presiding over the silly copyright case involving Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code has delivered a verdict:
A high court judge today rejected claims that Dan Brown’s bestselling novel The Da Vinci Code breached the copyright of an earlier book.
Frankly, this was a predictable outcome. It is certainly the right one. The authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh; were attempting to claim copyright on ideas. Artists have always borrowed ideas and inspiration from earlier works – take Shakespeare for starters…
Given that there are limits on the possible plot scenarios available to writers; the chase, the quest, revenge, unrequited love, mistaken identity, the caper for example, any successful copyright claim would seriously hamper the creative process for future writers. This was an example of frivolous litigation and, quite rightly, has been rejected.
The claimants were ordered to pay 85% of Random House’s legal costs, which are estimated at nearly £1.3m, with an interim payment of £350,000 to be made by May 5.
Just as well their sales went through the roof on the back of this action and Dan Brown’s success, then… :dry:
Now playing: Beethoven – No. 6 – Allegro
I must be honest, when I read an article about the Da Vinci Code and its contents, I immediately thought of the book by Baigent and Leigh which I read in the early 90’s along with a handful of similar books such as The Messianic Prophecy, The Messianic Legacy and a couple written by Barbara Thiering. I don’t think I was the only one.
There’s an interesting paradox to this story. Baigent and Leigh are claiming that their book is the truth. There is, quite rightly, no copyright on actual events. Therefore, by taking the matter to court and claiming copyright infringement, they have admitted that it is fiction. lbhh
lbhh