Dan Brown Wins "Da Vinci" Lawsuit

Authors Who Claimed Copyright Infringement Face $6M In Legal Bills

(AP)  Author Dan Brown won his copyright infringement case Tuesday, after Britain's Court of Appeal rejected efforts from two authors who claimed he stole their ideas for his blockbuster novel, "The Da Vinci Code."

Lawyers for Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of "The Holy Blood And The Holy Grail," now face legal bills of about $6 million after losing their appeal against publisher Random House Inc.

Baigent and Leigh had argued that Brown stole significant elements from their book. Both are based on a theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and that the bloodline continues to this day.

The lawyers said Baigent and Leigh had "expended a vast amount of skill and labor" in writing their book, first published in 1982. "That skill and labor is protectable."

Brown testified for several days during the High Court hearing last year.

The claimants' lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, said that although the suit had been against the publisher rather than the author, Brown was really the one being put on trial for his work.

During a hearing earlier this year, Rayner James said issues remained about the role of Brown's wife, Blythe Brown, who did much of the original research for the blockbuster novel. She did not testify at the High Court hearing. Brown said he wanted to protect his wife from publicity.

In April, Justice Peter Smith ruled that Random House, publisher of "The Da Vinci Code," had not breached the copyright. Smith said the claim was based on a "selective number of facts and ideas artificially taken out of (the book) for the purpose of the litigation."

"The Da Vinci Code" has sold more than 40 million copies since its release in March 2003. A film version starring Tom Hanks was released last year.

"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" also was published by Random House. It was a bestseller when released 20 years ago.

[cmp271]

Anyone can research historical documents and form ideas. Does this mean they own the copyright to history?? I doubt it.

Dan Brown wrote fiction based on history, the other book is history based on research, big difference.

I am glad he won as it is a great book. Hopefully got alot of people thinking.

[ajaxrose1]

There's a huge difference between the two books. Dan Brown's book was entertaining and highly readable. The other one, of which I also own a copy, reads like a text book. I didn't enjoy the read as much. Don't get me wrong it's not terrible, but I was more entertained by Dan Brown (which is part of the reason I read fiction). On the subject of copyright, there's not much new under the sun, folks. The ideas behind the notion of the Da Vinci code is older than Da Vinci himself. How do you copyright an idea as old as that? Dan Brown took the old idea, wrapped it in a new story, and presented it in a very creative way that appealed to the masses. AND he made a ton of money. When that happens someone always wants "their" piece. If the book had tanked no one would have heard a word out of these guys. I would think they should be thanking Dan Brown, because their book actually sold some more copies because of his book, LONG after it had been forgotten. I'm glad it worked out the way it did this time.