Court Says 'Da Vinci Code' Not a Copy

Dan Brown was cleared for the second time by the U.K. Court of Appeal of plagiarizing his best-selling "The Da Vinci Code" novel from an earlier book.

The Court of Appeal rejected a copyright lawsuit that was brought on by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh. The two authors wrote the 1982 non-fiction "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."

The writers argued that Brown used their historical theories which included a possible marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene as the basis for "The Da Vinci Code." Both books present the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene not only married but had a child, and that the bloodline continues to this day.

The Court of Appeal ruled that while the two books share some thematic elements, the theories are too general to be protected under law.

Brown's thriller links famed locations in Paris and London to a sinister plot by the Roman Catholic Church. The novel has become a publishing phenomenon since it debuted in 2003, selling more than 40 million copies worldwide.

Today's judgment in U.K. court upholds a lower court ruling that blocked Baigent and Leigh from claiming significant royalties from the publish of "The Da Vinci Code," Random House Inc.

``We believe that the case should never have come to court in the first place, and regret that even more time and money was spent trying to appeal the original judgment,'' Gail Rebuck, chief executive officer of Random House Group, said in a statement. ``Misguided claims like the one that we have faced, and the appeal, are not good for authors, and not good for publishers.''

Brown was not a defendant in the case. He had testified last year that he studied the plaintiffs' book when writing his novel but did not copy from it.

Baigent and Leigh now face legal bills of about $6 million. Brown testified for days at the High Court hearing last year.

Baigent and Leigh said they were disappointed with the ruling, saying it would fail to protect other writers from plagiarism.

``We feel that today is an ominous one for those who wish to research a book of their own and come up with their own theories,'' the authors said in a statement. ``It is a carte blanche for those who would rather not bother, but simply take another author's ideas and adapt them.''

The case was Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v. The Random House Group Ltd.

Sources:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601088&sid=aZueOhDmIU94&refer=muse
http://news.bostonherald.com/international/europe/view.bg?articleid=191331