Bookplanet: judge decides Dan Brown didn't steal his research

Judge Clears 'Da Vinci Code' Author

LONDON, April 7 — A High Court judge ruled today that Dan Brown did not steal the idea for his stratospherically successful thriller, "The Da Vinci Code," from an earlier book, and he cleared Mr. Brown's publisher, Random House, of accusations of copyright infringement.

In issuing his judgment, Justice Peter Smith said that Mr. Brown did indeed rely on the earlier work, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" in writing a section of "The Da Vinci Code." But he said that two of "Holy Blood's" authors, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, had failed to define the central theme of their book and thus failed to prove their accusation that Mr. Brown had lifted it from them.

In fact, the judge said, the earlier book "does not have a central theme as contended by the claimants: it was an artificial creation for the purposes of the litigation working back from 'The Da Vinci Code.' "

Mr. Baigent and Mr. Leigh sued Random House U.K. (which happens to be their publisher as well), claiming that "the Da Vinci Code" had stolen the "architecture" of their book — the steps they took to reach their conclusions — and thus was guilty of copyright infringement. (The book's third author, Henry Lincoln, did not take part). But they spectacularly failed to prove their case, Justice Smith said, in a ruling that was at times sharply critical of the plaintiffs as well as of Mr. Brown and his wife, Blythe, who does much of his research.

"It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way 'The Da Vinci Code' has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright," he wrote.

In a statement, the 41-year-old Mr. Brown, whose book has sold more than 40 million copies in hardback and is selling even more rapidly in paperback, said that he was pleased with the verdict, "not only from a personal standpoint, but also as a novelist."

"Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit," he said. "I'm still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all." Mr. Brown's book will likely enjoy a new surge of attention in coming weeks with the release on May 19 of the "Da Vinci Code" film, which stars Tom Hanks.

Justice Brown rejected the plaintiffs' request to appeal the verdict, ordering them to pay 85 percent of Random House's legal costs, likely to run into several million dollars.

The case was being carefully watched by copyright lawyers excited at the prospect of a new legal precedent being set and was a hot ticket, for a copyright case, drawing Holy Grail buffs and reporters from around the world to the High Court. But the judge's ruling confirmed existing law.

Mark Stephens, a media lawyer in London, said in an interview that while Random House's victory was practically a foregone conclusion, "what's interesting is that the p.r. machine for Dan Brown and Random House is cranking up to portray this as some famous vindication of Dan Brown."

He continued, using the American title of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail: "Whilst the decision shows that he didn't infringe copyright, his moral behavior is more, in my view, open to question. It's clear that he used the fundamental themes and ideas of '"Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and many people will think that morally, Dan Brown owes a debt to Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln."

The case called into question, at least is theory, the whole enterprise of fiction that relies on other people's research. The history of literature is also the history of fictionalization and of authors who borrow or steal from other writers. Shakespeare lifted both plots and history in his plays; the author Robert Harris bases his erudite thrillers on thorough research into topics like Nazi Germany and ancient Rome; Michael Crichton relies extensively on the science of others.

But this case was slightly different. For one thing, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" is not pure history; its authors call it "historical conjecture," meaning that it draws leap-of-faith conclusions from a mass of research.

The book was first published in 1982 and became a best seller. Using historical and sometimes dubiously provenanced material, it suggests that Christ married Mary Magdalene; that the couple's descendants are still flourishing today, guarded by a secret sect called the Priory of Sion; that factions within the Catholic Church are eager to suppress this information; and that the Holy Grail may not be a chalice at all, but the embodiment of Mary Magdalene's bloodline.

By contrast, Mr. Brown's book is an old-fashioned, page-turning thriller that starts with the murder of a curator in the Louvre and continues with the efforts of a Harvard professor and French cryptologist to solve a spiraling mystery while eluding various people who want to kill them. But at its heart lies a series of conjectures about the fate of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and the provenance of the Holy Grail.

Mr. Brown has never made a secret of his reliance on "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." One of his main characters, an effete English historian, is named Sir Leigh Teabing, an explicit homage to Mr. Leigh and Mr. Baigent ("Teabing" is an anagram of "Baigent"). He keeps "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" on his bookshelf and describes it as the most important book of its kind.

In a sometimes esoteric ruling thatoccasionally veered away from points of law to take on questions of literary criticism and the marketplace for books, Justice Smith was unusually harsh about the failure of Blythe Brown, Mr. Brown's wife and his main researcher, to give testimony. He said he did not believe Mr. Brown's claim that he and his wife did not begin consulting "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" until he was well into the process of writing "The Da Vinci Code."

"While the litigation is against Random House, it is Mr. Brown's and his wife's writings which are effectively in the dock," Justice Smith said . "I conclude that her absence is explicable only on the basis that she would not support Mr. Brown's assertion as to the use made of 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail,' and when that use occurred."

Speaking of the pro-Brown testimony of Stephen Rubin, the publisher of Doubleday, which publishes "The Da Vinci Code" in the U.S. (and is owned by Bertelsmann, which also owns Random House) Justice Smith said that his evidence "simply demonstrated how important the art of publicity is in the world of publishing."

But while Mr. Rubin's "enthusiasm of the book knew no bounds," the judge said, "I am not sure it is as good as he says but then I am no literary person."

Finally, he passed judgment of a sorts on the merit of "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" and on its author's quixotic lawsuit.

" 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' is a very interesting book to read whether or not it is credible," Justice Smith wrote. He added: "It is unfortunate that the claimants were not willing to bask in the glow of recognition that the book gave them when it was published in 1982 and the subsequent revival of interest in their book as a result entirely of 'The Da Vinci Code.'"