Today:
|
The 'The Da Vinci Code' Trial Ends: Dan Brown did not infringe the copyright of Holy Blood, Holy Grail
 |
| Mr Justice Peter Smith gave a long and detailed judgement on the case |
The Da Vinci Code case at London's High Court has concluded, rejecting two writers' claims that the best-selling book's author Dan Brown infringed the copyright of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
According to the judge: "The evidence in this case demonstrates that as regards The Da Vinci Code that is simply not correct with respect to historical lectures.
The major part of the writings of the lectures at a later stage have substantially come from The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.
As he has taken matters at a general and low level of abstraction and he has only taken ideas and facts without any of the architecture, he has done nothing wrong.
It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way The Da Vinci Code has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright.
I accept that if that was allowed to happen it would have a serious impact on writing.
Mr Brown should not be denigrated because of the adverse findings I have made against him in respect of some aspects of his evidence. Nor should his book be criticised or his writings skills be criticised because of those matters. They reflect but a part of the overall package.
The package has proved to be extremely successful and like everything that is successful when one reads Mr Brown's evidence it seems very easy to do.
It was said in evidence that there is at least one book in every person. The skill of the great is always (in whatever area is being talked about) in making it all seem very easy."
Story continues: bbc.co.uk
UPDATE: LONDON April 6 - Judge to rule on 'Da Vinci Code' by Jill Lawless
Like a good thriller, "The Da Vinci Code" trial has had drama, controversy and conflict. And it's ending with a cliffhanger - which way will a judge rule in the copyright infringement case against the publisher of Dan Brown's world-conquering novel?
High Court justice Peter Smith rules Friday in the claim by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh against "The Da Vinci Code" publisher Random House.
Smith must decide whether Brown's blockbuster "appropriated the architecture" of Baigent and Leigh's 1982 nonfiction book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." In the United States, the book is titled, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail."
Source: mercurynews.com
|
UPDATE: LONDON March 26 - The Dan Brown code by Sridhar Balan
While the jury or rather the sole judge Peter Smith is out on the Dan Brown case, a verdict of ‘not guilty’ seems most likely. In a way, the case was almost lost from the start.
Dan Brown was accused of large-scale plagiarism from a previously published book, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail in his best-selling book The Da Vinci Code. The authors of The Holy Blood Michael Baigent and Peter Leigh, had brought action against Dan Brown and his publishers and sued them for £2 million.
Source: financialexpress.com
|
 UPDATE: LONDON March 23
Catholic League president Bill Donohue today addressed recent developments associated with “The Da Vinci Code”:
“All the Catholic League wants is for Ron Howard to put a disclaimer at the top of his movie noting that ‘The Da Vinci Code’ is not a work of history and we’ll drop the issue. While Howard refuses to comment on this request, there are important recent signs that he has gotten the message. For example, yesterday on the ‘Today’ show, co-producer Brian Grazer said three times that the film is ‘informed fiction’; he said that this was also the position of director Ron Howard and lead actor Tom Hanks. Indeed, he went so far as to say, ‘We don’t feel it’s factual, it’s not historic, but it’s informed fiction, and it’s a thriller.’ What exactly is informing this fable he does not say, but in any event we welcome this admission.
Source: novopress.info
|
UPDATE: LONDON March 20 - Lawyer: Da Vinci Code author's testimony should be treated with suspicion
A lawyer whose client accuses author Dan Brown of stealing ideas for his best-selling thriller The Da Vinci Code said Monday the novelist's testimony should be treated with suspicion.
Making his closing submission at the end of a three-week trial, Jonathan Rayner James also asked why Brown's wife, Blythe - who did much of the research for the novel - was not called as a witness in the copyright-infringement case.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Da Vinci Code publisher Random House, claiming Brown's book "appropriated the architecture" of their 1982 non-fiction book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Both books explore theories - dismissed by theologians - that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives.
Source: canada.com
|
UPDATE: LONDON March 18 - 'Da Vinci' Trial Closing Statement: Prosecution in 'Tatters,' Claimant 'Extremely Dishonest or a Complete Fool'
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh's case against Dan Brown "is now in tatters," the High Court heard on Friday, as Random House barrister John Baldwin made his closing statement. Baldwin tore into the The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail authors' testimonies, branding Baigent as "either extremely dishonest or a complete fool." Both authors claim Brown stole the "architectural edifice of ideas" in their 1982 nonfiction work, and "hung it on the peg of a fictional thriller," Brown's The Da Vinci Code.
"Mr. Baigent was a thoroughly unreliable witness," Baldwin said, pointing to long silences, evasive answers, retractions of his witness statement and refusals "to accept the obvious" as proof. "The court cannot have any confidence in a single word of his evidence, written or oral."
Source: thebookstandard.com
|
UPDATE: LONDON – March 16, 2006 - 'Da Vinci Code' trial intrigue
'JUST A PUBLICITY stunt,' scoffed a gent in the lobby outside Courtroom 61 tucked at the end of a labyrinth in the Royal Court of Justice -- now home of the plagiarism trial of "Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown. Two of the three authors of the 1982 (sort of) nonfiction book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" are suing Brown for copyright infringement on the dubious grounds that Brown nicked 15 central points from their book. The two plaintiffs, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, now refer to "HBHG" -- as the wigs in the courthouse call it -- as "historical conjecture," a term that paves their twisted claim of ownership not, of prose, but of rumor and innuendo. Woe be tide any other scribe who repeats it.
Source: sfgate.com
UPDATE: LONDON, March 15, 2006 (UPI) - Agent Supports 'Da Vinci' Author In Suit
A literary agent who testified in the London plagiarism trial of "The Da Vinci Code" author Dan Brown called the claims "a storm in a teacup." Patrick Janson-Smith also warned Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh "were in danger of making fools of themselves," the BBC reported Wednesday.
Source: postchronicle.com
|
UPDATE: LONDON – March 11, 2006 - Heated verbal exchanges erupted yesterday in the closing stages of the ''Da Vinci Code" copyright court case, in which two historians are accusing author Dan Brown of lifting their research in his bestseller. Richard Leigh took the witness box after more than three days of cross-examination of co-claimant Michael Baigent, enlivening proceedings and saying all he had wanted was acknowledgment from Brown in his novel. Leigh and Baigent, coauthors of the 1982 historical work ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail," say Brown copied their central themes. Brown, 41, is expected to testify Monday.
Source: boston.com
|
 |
| Michael Baigent |
UPDATE: LONDON – March 7, 2006 - An author who is suing the publishers of the "The Da Vinci Code" admitted Tuesday in a British court that he had exaggerated his case that the best-selling novel had copied his work.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the 1982 nonfiction book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail," are suing Random House, the publisher of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code."
They claim that parts of their work formed the basis of Brown's novel, which has sold more than 40 million copies and has been made into a film starring Tom Hanks.
Source: wistv.com
|
 UPDATE: March 5, 2006 LONDON – It is one of the bestselling novels of recent times. But of all the 40 million or so readers who have romped through Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," none may be as important to the author, his book, and the world of fiction as Peter Smith.
The British judge has been perusing the 600-pager over the past week - not as part of his local reading group, but as part of a crucial copyright case in which two other writers claim that Brown stole their ideas.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing Mr. Brown's publisher, Random House, alleging that the 2003 thriller was based on their 1982 historical work, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail," which contends that Jesus Christ survived crucifixion and escaped to France to sire a dynasty with Mary Magdalene.
If Brown's novel had readers on the edge of their seats, the case has copyright lawyers and historical authors similarly engrossed. For it touches on the very nature of the creative process of writing, questioning whether authors have free rein to rework the ideas and research of others.
Source: csmonitor.com
|
 UPDATE: March 2, 2006 Few of last year's movies have generated as much buzz as a 2006 blockbuster that isn't even out yet. The long-awaited Da Vinci Code, based on Dan Brown's controversial bestseller, will star Tom Hanks and Lord of the Rings actor Ian McKellen. The film is scheduled to open May 19 but, at least in Britain, it might not.
Two writers are suing publisher Random House in London, alleging that Da Vinci stole ideas from their 20-year-old book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Their case is flimsy at best. Plagiarism — a serious infringement — was neither committed nor alleged. Brown's book is fiction; the other is non-fiction. Building on the ideas of others is an integral part of intellectual freedom and creativity.
Brown is suffering from a problem common to anyone who makes it big: the envy of the less successful. It's the reason some insurance companies sell "success protection." Brown already fought off a lawsuit in New York from another jealous author alleging "substantial similarities" with his work.
The trial is due to last another week. It's possible that, because of wooly British copyright law, the case could delay the opening of the movie in Britain — a defeat for free expression. Another ending is already guaranteed: more buzz for next year's Oscars. Source: usatoday.com
|
|
Lindsey Parnaby/European Pressphoto Agency
The author Dan Brown arriving at the High Court in London. |
LONDON, Feb. 27 — Opening arguments began here on Monday in a case that sets Dan Brown, megaselling author of "The Da Vinci Code," against the authors of a nonfiction book who contend that he stole their ideas for his book.
Speaking before a packed courtroom in London's High Court, Jonathan Rayner James, the lawyer for the aggrieved authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, said that Mr. Brown had "appropriated" the "architecture" and central argument of their book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (1982) in "The Da Vinci Code," published in 2003.
The case has enough twists for a novel in itself. For one thing, both "The Da Vinci Code" and "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" are published in Britain by Random House. That means that Mr. Baigent and Mr. Leigh are suing their own publisher. (A third co-author, Henry Lincoln, has decided not to participate in the case.)
Then there was the sight of the intensely private Mr. Brown, dressed in his customary turtleneck and blazer, sitting not far from Gail Rebuck, chief executive of Random House U.K., in the courtroom's front row. Although he is not named as a defendant, Mr. Brown plans not only to attend the entire trial but also to take the stand, as a defense witness for Random House. Ms. Rebuck said in a statement that "Random House takes no pleasure in defending legal action that it believes is without merit, and we are confident that we shall prevail." If the plaintiffs win, the case could conceivably have wide repercussions on copyright law in Britain, affecting authors whose novels rely on the original historical research of other authors. Random House is arguing, for instance, that a ruling for the plaintiffs would affect the future work of novelists like Robert Harris, Michael Crichton and Julian Barnes.
If Random House loses, the case could potentially affect the release in Britain of the film "The Da Vinci Code," starring Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen, scheduled to open here on May 19.
"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" (published in the United States as "Holy Blood, Holy Grail") posits that Christ survived the crucifixion and went on to marry Mary Magdalene, that the couple's descendants are still flourishing today, that factions within the Catholic Church are eager to suppress this information, and that the Holy Grail is far more mysterious and far more complicated than anyone ever imagined.
The three authors spent five years, from 1976 to 1981, researching the book, they say, before arriving at what they call the "central architecture" of their argument. It is this architecture — the trajectory of the case they make in "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" — that they say Mr. Brown appropriated, rather than individual words or passages.
"It is not as though Brown has simply lifted a discrete series of raw facts from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,' " the plaintiffs argue in court papers. "He has lifted the connections that join the points up." They continue: "There is no other credible explanation as to how the architecture from "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" could be in "The Da Vinci Code." In addition, the plaintiffs say, their book is not "a historical account of facts and it does not purport to be such," but is, rather, "a book of historical conjecture setting out the authors' hypotheses" — and thus protected by copyright.
Story by by Sarah Lyall and continues at nytimes.com. Requires FREE registration.
|
|
UFODIGEST.COM All rights reserved. FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.
|
