LONDON: A British High Court judge ruled Friday that author Dan Brown did not steal the idea for his novel, The Da Vinci Code, from an earlier non-fiction work by two authors and cleared his publishers, Random House, of charges of copyright violations.

Justice Peter Smith of the High Court said Brown had relied on the non-fiction book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, for a section of The Da Vinci Code, but the authors had failed to prove that Brown’s central theme was based on their work. Because, said the judge, they could not accurately state what the central theme was.
The judge went to the extent of criticising the two authors who brought the plaint saying their 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.”

The suit had generated a keen interest as any outcome against the publishers would have affected the release of a film based on the novel, in which Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou are starring, and it is set for release on 19 May.

The two authors had alleged that Brown, in writing The Da Vinci Code, had stolen the “architecture” of their book. He was, therefore, guilty of infringing on copyright. They were in effect seeking an injunction on the book, which has already sold some 40 million copies in hardcover.

The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, published in 1982, is a work of history, suggesting Jesus had married Mary Magdalene, that their descendants are still in existence, guarded by a sect called the Priory of Sion, and that some of the factions in the Catholic church want to put a lid on this information.

Brown’s book is fiction based on Jesus, Mary Magdalene and the Grail.

Judge Smith said even if the central themes were copied, “they are too general or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law.”

Brown had testified during the month-long trial. He said he and his wife Blythe had read The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, while researching his book but insisted they also used 38 other books and hundreds of documents. He said the historians’ work was not crucial to the novel.

Asked about passages that were similar, Brown defended his novel: “Reworking of the passage — that’s how you incorporate research into a novel.”

He was not present when the verdict was being pronounced, but said in a statement later he was pleased by the ruling. “(It) shows that this claim was utterly without merit. I’m still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all.

“A novelist must be free to draw appropriately from historical works without fear that he’ll be sued … This is a good day both for those who write and those who enjoy reading.”

Random House, owned by German media conglomerate Bertelsmann AG, and Sony Pictures, which is releasing the movie, also welcomed the judgment.

Judge Smith denied leave to Baigent and Leigh to appeal. They together have a legal bill of over 1 million pounds to settle.

Ironically, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was also published by Random House.