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

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll