header-logo header-logo

13 April 2007
Issue: 7268 / Categories: Legal News , Media , Data protection , Intellectual property
printer mail-detail

Da Vinci Code appeal is dismissed

Dan Brown, author of The Da Vinci Code, did not reproduce ideas from an earlier work in his best-selling novel, the Court of Appeal has ruled in Baigent v Random House Group.

The appeal court knocked back claims by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh that themes from their book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (HBHG), were plagiarised by Brown. The pair now face a legal bill of £3m.

A line had to be drawn between the legitimate use of ideas expressed and the unlawful copying of their expression, the court said. In this case, The Da Vinci Code fell the right side of the line and thus there had not been unlawful copying of the expression of the claimants’ ideas as set out in HBHG.

Carl Steele, a solicitor at Ashfords, says the case highlights the difficulty of succeeding with a claim for non-textual copyright infringement.

“The Court of Appeal has reaffirmed the well established principle that copyright does not subsist in ideas per se; it only protects the way in which those ideas are expressed. In each case,

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll