![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In a development that has completely failed to astonish intellectual property lawyers, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh have lost their appeal against Mr Justice Peter Smith's decision last year that Dan Brown (or strictly, Random House, his publisher) had not plagiarised The Da Vinci Code from their The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.
The Court of Appeal, whilst mildly critical of the somewhat rushed and disorganised nature of Peter Smith J's judgment, did not accept that he had misdirected himself on the law of copyright. Lord Justices Mummery, Rix and Lloyd themselves produced a lengthy judgment which goes into considerable detail regarding questions of the extent to which the 'central theme' of a book can be protected from infringement. Significantly, they clearly distinguished this case from Ravenscroft v Herbert thus, as I noted last year, maintaining clear markers as to what does and does not constitute plagiarism of purportedly non-fiction sources by a work of fiction.
The only question now is whether Baigent and Leigh will go the whole hog and appeal to the House of Lords. With legal bills of £3M and their already-tenuous grounds of appeal comprehensively demolished in this latest decision, I cannot see their lawyers advising much prospect of success. But stranger things have happened - such as this ludicrous case reaching court in the first place.
The Court of Appeal, whilst mildly critical of the somewhat rushed and disorganised nature of Peter Smith J's judgment, did not accept that he had misdirected himself on the law of copyright. Lord Justices Mummery, Rix and Lloyd themselves produced a lengthy judgment which goes into considerable detail regarding questions of the extent to which the 'central theme' of a book can be protected from infringement. Significantly, they clearly distinguished this case from Ravenscroft v Herbert thus, as I noted last year, maintaining clear markers as to what does and does not constitute plagiarism of purportedly non-fiction sources by a work of fiction.
The only question now is whether Baigent and Leigh will go the whole hog and appeal to the House of Lords. With legal bills of £3M and their already-tenuous grounds of appeal comprehensively demolished in this latest decision, I cannot see their lawyers advising much prospect of success. But stranger things have happened - such as this ludicrous case reaching court in the first place.
