Da Vinci Code 'not stolen'
2006-04-07 17:02
London - A British judge ruled on Friday that best-selling thriller The Da Vinci Code did not steal ideas from two authors' non-fiction book.
High Court judge Peter Smith rejected a copyright-infringement claim by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, who claimed that Dan Brown's blockbuster "appropriated the architecture" of their 1982 book.
The favourable ruling will allow the film based on the book, starring Tom Hanks, to open as scheduled on May 19.
Smith said the plaintiffs had based their copying claim on a "selective number of facts and ideas artificially taken out of (the book) for the purpose of the litigation."
"It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (Da Vinci Code) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright," said Smith in his 71-page ruling.
Brown said he was looking forward to focusing on his next novel.
"Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit," he said in a statement released by his publisher.
"I'm pleased with today's outcome, not only from a personal standpoint but also as a novelist."
Random House said the case should have never made it to court.
"We never believed it should have come to court and frequently tried to explain why to the claimants," said Gail Rebuck, chief executive of Random House Ltd.
Both books explore theories that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, the couple had a child and the bloodline survives. Most historians and theologians scoff at such ideas, but Brown's fast-paced mix of murder, mysticism, code-breaking and art history has won millions of fans.
The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40 million copies - including 12 million hardcovers in the United States - since it was released in March 2003. It came out in paperback in the United States last week, and quickly sold more than 500 000 copies. An initial print run of five million has already been raised to six million.
The victory was widely anticipated by lawyers, because copyright protects the expression of an idea rather than the idea itself.
"There is no copyright in ideas," said Mark Stephens, a lawyer specialising in media law and copyright issues with Finer Stephens Innocent in London. "It's just about how words are expressed."
"If the verdict were in favour of the plaintiffs, the judge (would) have rewritten the law of copyright."
Leigh and Baigent could now have to pay costs that legal experts estimate will top £1m.
- AP