Da Vinci Code case continues
American Dan Brown, one of the highest paid authors in history, faced a High Court claim today that the central theme of his blockbuster novel, The Da Vinci Code, was copied from an earlier work.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing their own publishers, Random House, claiming the internationally successful ovel lifts from their 1982 book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (HBHG), itself a best seller.
Jonathan Rayner James QC, representing the Holy Blood authors, told Mr Justice Peter Smith that the Da Vinci Code is an infringement of his clients’ copyright.
Mr Rayner James said: “The claimants are not alone in this. Many people all over the world have commented to the same effect since The Da Vinci Code was first published.”
He said Dan Brown claims that the Holy Blood was “incidental” to the creation of his book and was only consulted at the very end of its making.
“This is an extraordinary claim that would surprise anyone who has read The Da Vinci Code after reading the HBHG.”
Mr Rayner James said the HBHG was “historical conjecture” setting out the authors’ hypothesis.
“The authors’ historical conjecture has spawned many other books that developed aspects of this conjecture in a variety of directions.
“But none has lifted the central theme of the book.”
He said the authors had invested a “massive amount of their lives” researching the HBHG between 1976 and 1981.
“There can be no dispute that Brown was aware of the importance of the HBHG to the central theme when he wrote DVC.”
Mr Rayner James said the Sir Leigh Teabing character in DVC even mentions the importance of HBHG in the novel.
But Dan Brown had said the HBHG was not “crucial or important” to the creation of the central theme of his novel and when he wrote his synopsis, he had not even read it.
The American author said he had not even heard of HBHG until he saw it mentioned in some of his research books.
“This cannot be correct,” said Mr Rayner James.
The non-fiction work deals with theories that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married, had a child, and the blood line continues to this day – with the Catholic Church trying to suppress the discovery.
It is similar to the theme explored in the Dan Brown novel which won best book at last year’s British Book Awards and has sold over 40 million copies worldwide, earning the author £45m (€66m) in one year.
If the two writers are successful and opt to take injunctions stopping use of their material, it could threaten the European release of the film adaptation of the novel, starring Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen, which is scheduled to open on May 19.
The case, expected to last up to two weeks, is also likely to clarify existing copyright laws over the extent to which an author can use other people’s research.
Dan Brown, whose earnings are estimated at more than £200m (€293.5m), acknowledges the theories of The Holy Blood in his novel and names the villain in his story Sir Leigh Teabing, which, it has been suggested, was a deliberate part anagram of the surnames of the authors of the earlier work.
Gail Rebuck, chief executive of Random House, issued a statement about the case saying her company had published both books.
“We are genuinely saddened that two of the three authors of HBHG have chosen to bring litigation against us.
“Random House takes no pleasure in defending legal action that it believes is without merit and we are confident that we shall prevail.”
John Baldwin QC, representing Random House, said in papers put before the London court that HBHG had generated controversy when it was published over the idea that Jesus survived the Crucifixion and founded a bloodline that continues to the present day.
“In brief, the complaint appears to be that HBHG discloses the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, that they had children which survived and married into a line of French kings, that the lineage continues today, and that there is a secret society based in France which has the objective of restoring this lineage to the thrones not only of France but to the thrones of other European nations as well, and that DVC uses some of this idea.”
He said that there is no copyright in information of this nature and there had been no copying from HBHG.
Mr Baldwin said many of the ideas complained of were not even in both books and most were not original to HBHG anyway.
He said HBHG had been referred to by Dan Brown in his novel.
“But HBHG did not have anything like the importance to Mr Brown which the claimants contend it had.”
The hearing was adjourned until tomorrow.
| Related Stories: |
|
