No, Dan Brown Really Didn't Copy Your Book.

[major_clanger]

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.

Comments

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

There are times where one wonders what was going through someone's head when they decided to do something. In the case of Teabag and Co., I can only assume it was Hurricane Juliet.

[blue-condition.livejournal.com]

Baigent/Lee and Brown share a publisher. And the publicity.

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

Indeed. Though whether the publisher will be cross-subsidising the costs is another matter entirely.

('Frivolous lawsuit'?)

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

A lot of people noted this last year, although I think that if the Court felt for a minute that this case was being brought as a publicity stunt then it would have thrown it out as an abuse of process. Also, they now have a huge legal bill to meet, and I cannot believe that they have netted £3M in royalties from extra sales of HBHG.

I just think they were ill-advised, or more likely ill-disposed to listen to good advice.