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.
From the US Copyright Office
"Several categories of material are generally not eligible for federal copyright protection. These include among others: ... Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or devices, as distinguished from a description, explanation, or illustration."However, certain things aside from straight text are subject to copyright, such as the characters in a book. You can eventually cross a line in character development where you are infringing on the copyright of the author who created the character (yes, all fan fiction you read is infringement, but it's usually not sold so authors don't make a big deal about it, plus suing your fans is not a good idea as the RIAA has learned). He could make a claim that Brown is copying his character development of Jesus, but that's on pretty thin ice IMHO.
That's just my non-lawyer, but well-studied, opinion. This book has already survived two other lawsuits over the basic idea.
OTOH, this is in a UK court, so I can't be that precise. Their copyright law is pretty close to ours in this respect, but I don't know their precedent at all.
Many years ago Ben Hecht wrote a book about the plotters responsible for the Haymarket riots. It read like non-fiction, but Hecht had invented some composite characters to smooth out the narrative. Later, a screenwriter used Hecht's book as research for a screenplay and included some of these characters, assuming they were real people. As I recall, Hecht won that lawsuit. It's possible that Brown may be vulnerable since the material he used isn't historical fact, but someone's original interpretation of events.
I appreciate your sharing. I don't like the idea of writers scamming people, like that guy who wrote "A Million Little Pieces."
Incorrect:
"The secret I reveal is one that has been whispered for centuries. It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new." www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
"I began as a skeptic. As I started researching The Da Vinci Code I really thought I would disprove a lot of this theory about Mary Magdalene and holy blood and all of that. I became a believer." Primetime 3 November 2003
Also, why would a work of genuine fiction need to include the following statement:
"All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
" It is not my own. Admittedly, this may be the first time the secret has been unveiled within the format of a popular thriller, but the information is anything but new. "
This will probably save him from the plaigarism charges. Still, AA, there's nothing here that claims to be factual! Secret unveiled does not equal fact. "Whispered for centuries" sounds like nothing more than gossip, to me.
But I made my statement based on what he said on a televised interview, "I never said it was anything more than fiction." He may have become a believer but he hasn't proved a thing. Ask the folks in Vatican City!
Instances and circumstances where judging is urged/required:
Jhn 7:24 Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
1Cr 10:15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.
1Cr 11:13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
1Cr 11:31 For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.
Criteria for judging “things that pertain to life”:
1Cr 6:2 “Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?”......on through v5
Thank you spirited, but I wonder if you suggest I should trash the book on basis of content alone? I mean, aside from the fact that it's not very well written...?
This would maybe equate with my choice not to view certain movies [X] because I feel they are in poor taste?
Well, he sure didn't copy it out of the Bible.
Right. It's just fiction and a pretty good story. Geez, people need to lighten up. As a devout Christian I disagreed entirly with Tim LaHaye's interpetation of end times prophecy but I loved the Left Behind books. They weren't that well written, but they were also a great adventure story with a Christian setting. I'm sure they also brought many people to Christ.
I have not seen any Harry Potter movies, but it's not because I have heard they're anti-Christian. I tried to read The Hobbit in high school and Fantasy just is not a genre that appeals to me, frankly. I much preferred Siddhartha.
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.