`Da Vinci Code' publisher beats copyright lawsuit - Two claimed author stole from 1982 book
`Da Vinci Code' publisher beats copyright lawsuit - Two claimed author stole from 1982 book
By Danica Kirka
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune and The Associated Press
Published March 29, 2007
LONDON -- Britain's Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit Wednesday from two authors who claimed novelist Dan Brown stole their ideas for his blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code."
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued Brown's publisher, Random House Inc., claiming he had copied from their 1982 non-fiction book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."
Both books explore the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, and that the bloodline continues.
One of the judges said copyright protects an author's labor in researching and writing a book, but doesn't extend to facts, theories and themes.
Brown wasn't a defendant. He testified last year that he studied the plaintiffs' book when writing his best-selling novel but didn't copy from it.
The "case should never have come to court in the first place" and was a waste of "time and money," Random House Group Chief Executive Gail Rebuck said Wednesday 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," she said. "But we are glad that the Court of Appeal has upheld the original judgment and that, once again, common sense and justice have prevailed, helping to ensure the future of creative writing in the UK."
The authors now face legal bills of about $6 million.
Baigent and Leigh "expended a vast amount of skill and labor" on their book, their lawyers said. "That skill and labor is protectable."
Brown testified for several days during the High Court hearing last year.
The claimants' lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, said that although the lawsuit had been against the publisher rather than the author, Brown was really the one on trial.
During a hearing earlier this year, Rayner James said issues remain about the role of Brown's wife, Blythe, who did much of the research. She didn't testify at the High Court hearing. Brown said he wanted to protect his wife from publicity.
By Danica Kirka
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune and The Associated Press
Published March 29, 2007
LONDON -- Britain's Court of Appeal rejected a lawsuit Wednesday from two authors who claimed novelist Dan Brown stole their ideas for his blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code."
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh had sued Brown's publisher, Random House Inc., claiming he had copied from their 1982 non-fiction book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."
Both books explore the theory that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, and that the bloodline continues.
One of the judges said copyright protects an author's labor in researching and writing a book, but doesn't extend to facts, theories and themes.
Brown wasn't a defendant. He testified last year that he studied the plaintiffs' book when writing his best-selling novel but didn't copy from it.
The "case should never have come to court in the first place" and was a waste of "time and money," Random House Group Chief Executive Gail Rebuck said Wednesday 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," she said. "But we are glad that the Court of Appeal has upheld the original judgment and that, once again, common sense and justice have prevailed, helping to ensure the future of creative writing in the UK."
The authors now face legal bills of about $6 million.
Baigent and Leigh "expended a vast amount of skill and labor" on their book, their lawyers said. "That skill and labor is protectable."
Brown testified for several days during the High Court hearing last year.
The claimants' lawyer, Jonathan Rayner James, said that although the lawsuit had been against the publisher rather than the author, Brown was really the one on trial.
During a hearing earlier this year, Rayner James said issues remain about the role of Brown's wife, Blythe, who did much of the research. She didn't testify at the High Court hearing. Brown said he wanted to protect his wife from publicity.
posted by Carlos T Mock @ 7:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home