Brown said he reworked, but didn’t copy

LONDON – Attention-shy writer Dan Brown completed three days of tough courtroom scrutiny yesterday, acknowledging he reworked other writers’ material but rejecting claims he copied two authors’ work for his mega-selling thriller “The Da Vinci Code.”

Appearing as a witness for publisher Random House, Brown appeared increasingly tired during lengthy cross-examination that dwelled on the details of his research process and minutiae such as whether the word “savior” should be spelled with a u.

Writers Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Random House, Brown’s publisher, for copyright infringement at London’s High Court, claiming “The Da Vinci Code” “appropriated the architecture” of their 1982 nonfiction work. Both books explore theories — dismissed by theologians — that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives.

At one point, Rayner James asked Brown about the description in both books of Jesus as a “mortal prophet.”

“Mortal prophet is two words,” said Brown. “The entire religion of Islam views Jesus as a mortal prophet. It’s hardly unique to ‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.’”

“We’re not saying you can’t use those words,” Rayner James acknowledged.

If Baigent and Leigh succeed in securing an injunction to bar the use of their material, they could hold up the scheduled May 19 film release of “The Da Vinci Code,” starring Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

Brown has acknowledged that he and his wife, Blythe Brown, read “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” while researching “The Da Vinci Code,” but said they also used 38 other books and hundreds of documents, and that the British authors’ book was not crucial to their work.

Brown testified on Tuesday that he was certain he and his wife, who conducts much of his research, had read Baigent and Leigh’s book only after he had submitted his synopsis for the novel that would become “The Da Vinci Code” to his agent in January 2001.

Asked about passages from “The Da Vinci Code” that were similar to those in “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” Brown acknowledged “reworking of the passage — that’s how you incorporate research into a novel.”

But he denied copying. Asked about a description of the Roman emperor Constantine on his deathbed that appears, differently worded, in both books, Brown said: “I’m not crazy about the word ‘copied.’

“The Da Vinci Code” has sold more than 40 million copies since its release three years ago, and has turned Brown from a hardworking, modestly successful novelist into a literary superstar who tries to avoid the public spotlight.

Brown, who has traveled from his New Hampshire home to give evidence in the case, often appeared bemused by Rayner James’ questioning. He buried his head in a hand when discussion turned to whether he had used a document that spelled the word “savior” with a telltale British u — a sign, Rayner James, said, that it came from Baigent and Leigh’s book.

The attorney reminded him at one point: “You are not the defendant in the proceedings.”

Earlier, Patrick Janson-Smith, who was involved with both books as former publisher of Transworld, a division of Random House, took the stand briefly to support his former employer.

In a witness statement, Janson-Smith said he “saw similarities” between the two books, but no evidence of copying.

“‘The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail’ purports to be nonfiction; ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is a thriller,” he said. “I thought the latter was a romping piece of good fiction. Like any thriller, no doubt it took ideas from any number of sources.”

Janson-Smith said his reaction to news of Baigent and Leigh’s lawsuit was: “Why the fuss? They wouldn’t stand a prayer.”

“I didn’t think Baigent and Leigh had a leg to stand on and that they were in danger of making fools of themselves,” his statement said.

The third author of “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” Henry Lincoln, is not involved in the case. A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Paul Sutton, refused to say why he was not participating. Lincoln, who is in his 70s and reportedly in poor health, could not be reached for comment.

not only that, but the Author of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail claims it's a historical book rather than a work of fiction.

He's accusing Brown of copying the general story of what he's claiming to be a historical account.

I'm not really very fond of Brown, but this moron should have his case dismissed, should have to pay Brown's legal costs, and should have to pay Brown any increased royalties he gets from selling more copies of his book through this publicity stunt.

--I'm not really very fond of Brown, but this moron should have his case dismissed, should have to pay Brown's legal costs, and should have to pay Brown any increased royalties he gets from selling more copies of his book through this publicity stunt.

Brown could have given credit. I read the other book for some strange reason (I guess just looking for something interesting) a long time ago and Brown definitely stole the ideas, no question.

Brown could have given credit. I read the other book for some strange reason (I guess just looking for something interesting) a long time ago and Brown definitely stole the ideas, no question.

By that argument, the author of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" stole all his ideas too. After all he's claiming that his book is a historical account.

These weren't original ideas by that author. He's not claiming that Brown stole direct passages. Brown took some ideas that others have written about throughout history, and worked them into a work of fiction. That's something authors do all the time.

This whole things just screams publicity stunt.

Ideas can't be copyrighted though the expression of ideas can. It's a fine line, but an important one.

What makes this suit interesting is that the Grail conspiracy was a deliberate hoax, like the Piltdown Man. Apparently the authors of the earlier book were not the originators of the hoax, though they did get suckered into promoting it. On the other hand, if they were witting agents of a fraud on the public, then they may have a case against Dan Brown and be entitled to damages.

Conservesly, if the theory behind both books were based on genuine historical sources -- which it isn't -- then Brown's case would be stronger. (No one can have a lock on writing about actual historical events.)

Not saying anything one way or the other regarding the lawsuit, just that Brown was sleazy (and could have avoided everything by the way) in not giving proper credit as if the whole thing was his discovery. He did say the book's claims were fact's and didn't give credit to the other book. Just sleazy.

He did say the book's claims were fact's and didn't give credit to the other book.

He didn't take ideas from any one book. He took ideas from the body of work on that subject.

Fictional works don't have large works cited sections that explicitly mention all the different research material that was reviewed. If they did you're typical Tom Clancy novel would add a huge section at the end.

This isn't plagiarism. This isn't stealing someone else's work and claiming it as your own.

Giving credit to this one book wouldn't solve the problem, because it's just one of many, many books and documents he used when doing his research.

If you take material directly out of another book, you are responsible to site it as the source of that material.

However, if if you use ideas that have been reported on by many and wind them into a fictional work, you don't have a responsibility to cite those works.

Sometimes authors will mention books that inspired them, or suggest other books on the same subject to interested readers as a courtesy.

This guy isn't even suing Brown. He's suing the publisher that published both of their books. This is a publicity stunt.

--He didn't take ideas from any one book. He took ideas from the body of work on that subject.

A body which began with Holy Blood - Holy Grail. What other books came before that one which made the same arguments?

--Sometimes authors will mention books that inspired them, or suggest other books on the same subject to interested readers as a courtesy.

That's all I'm saying. A little gratitude for the original ideas that created so many millions for the author might also have driven up sales of Holy Blood - Holy Grail which seems like a decent thing to do.

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.