header-logo header-logo

Da Vinci Code appeal is dismissed

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

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

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll