International   

Da Vinci Code: ideas too general for copyright

Publishers' lawyer said many important themes of ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'' did not feature in ``The Da Vinci Code''.

LONDON: A lawyer for `The Da Vinci Code's publisher argued in court on Tuesday that ideas which two writers claim were stolen for Dan Brown's blockbuster novel are so general that they are not protected by copyright.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of the 1982 nonfiction book ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,'' are suing publisher Random House, claiming that parts of their work formed the basis of Mr. Brown's 2003 novel, which has sold more than 40 million copies.

Publishers' lawyer John Baldwin said the claim by Mr. Baigent and Mr. Leigh ``relates to and seeks to monopolise ideas at such a high level of generality that they are not protected by copyright.''

Brown appears in court

Mr. Brown, who is expected to testify next week, was in court for the second day of the trial.

It was expected to recess later in the day until next Tuesday, providing time for judge Peter Smith to read both books and related texts.

If the writers — whose work claimed Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that the couple had a child and that the bloodline survives — succeed in securing an injunction to bar the use of their material, they could hold up the scheduled May 19 release of ``The Da Vinci Code'' film, starring Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen.

Sony Pictures said it planned to release the film as scheduled.

Mr. Baldwin said many important themes of ``The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail'' did not feature in ``The Da Vinci Code,'' particularly the idea that a secretive order called the Priory of Sion exists and seeks to restore descendants of Jesus Christ to the thrones of Europe.

Mr. Baldwin said this was a ``massive point'' in the earlier book but was not stressed by Mr. Brown.

Mr. Baigent, born in New Zealand, and Mr. Leigh, originally from the United States, are suing Random House, which also published their book.

The company denies the claim and chief executive Gail Rebuck said in a statement she believed the lawsuit was without merit.

The book's third writer, Henry Lincoln, is not involved in the case.

Jonathan Rayner James, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Monday that his clients were not attempting to ``stultify creative endeavour,'' or to claim a monopoly on ideas or historical debate, but to prove Mr. Brown had ``relied heavily'' on the earlier work, published in Britain in 1982 and the following year in the United States.

- AP

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

IAEA says no evidence of Iranian n-weapons plan
ElBaradei plays peace-maker
Bird flu in Pakistan farms
A chip in the tooth
More reasons to eat chocolate
Fighting at Afghan prison
Da Vinci Code: ideas too general for copyright
Lost civilisation found
Anti-shock suit could save lives
Hu slashes Taiwan move
Delhi Declaration still relevant, says Mikhail Gorbachev

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu