'Da Vinci Code' Plaintiffs Fail in Quest to Show Ideas Were Stolen

Let the sequel proceed. And the movie. And probably the movie of the sequel.

A judge ruled yesterday in London that Dan Brown's international bestseller, "The Da Vinci Code," did not steal ideas or thematic elements from an earlier nonfiction book.

"The claimants' claim failed and is dismissed," Justice Peter Smith announced in a lengthy ruling.

Smith rejected copyright infringement claims by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh against Random House, the British publisher of "The Da Vinci Code." The plaintiffs contended that Brown's novel, which has sold more than 40 million copies in three years, lifted much of its "architecture" from their 1982 book, "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail."

"Today's verdict shows that this claim was utterly without merit," Brown said in a statement. "I'm still astonished that these two authors chose to file their suit at all."

At the heart of the trial were several ideas and themes that appeared in both Brown's fictional thriller and Baigent and Leigh's book (retitled "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" in the United States), which was written as nonfiction. Both explore historical and religious speculation that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, that the couple had a child, and that their lineage survives today. Both hinge on popular mystical touchstones, including the Knights Templar, the Holy Grail and a secret society known as the Priory of Sion, whose mission is to protect Jesus's progeny.

But the expression of those ideas differs from one book to the other, and that's the standard criterion in plagiarism and copyright infringement law. "Copyright protects the expression, not the idea," said intellectual property lawyer Lee Bromberg, a founding partner of the Boston-based law firm Bromberg & Sunstein, who called the plaintiffs' claim "a long shot" at best. "What Dan Brown did is simply make use of some of those ideas, but the expression was his and was original."

During three days on the witness stand, Brown testified that he and his wife, Blythe Brown, who researched most of the book, had used "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" -- along with 38 other books and more than a thousand documents -- in writing his labyrinthine tale.

From the start of the trial on Feb. 27, most of the publishing world criticized the lawsuit as frivolous. Random House called the claim "completely unsupported by facts," arguing that Baigent and Leigh had based their own work on dozens of earlier works.

A verdict favoring the plaintiffs would have upended British copyright law and made it difficult for novelists such as Brown to write without running the risk of violating the rights of historians they use as sources.

"It would have meant even more people would have filed more cases like this in Britain," said David Nimmer, who teaches copyright law at UCLA Law School and who updated and revised the legal treatise of his father, Melville, "Nimmer on Copyright."

Gail Rebuck, chairman and chief executive of the Random House Group Ltd. -- which also published the plaintiffs' book -- said in a statement yesterday that copyright laws try to strike a balance between protecting established works and allowing literary freedom, and the judgment upheld that balance.

"At Random House we are pleased that justice -- and common sense -- have prevailed," she said. "It is highly unusual and very sad that these authors chose to sue their publishers, especially after 20 successful years. This case has been extremely distressing for all concerned. We never believed it should have come to court."

For Baigent and Leigh, the lawsuit was a high-stakes gamble. A victory would have entitled them to millions in royalties. Now, under Smith's ruling, they'll have to pick up 85 percent of Random House's legal fees, which are estimated to exceed $1.75 million.

The plaintiffs will be permitted to appeal only on narrow grounds, says Bromberg: "I'd be surprised if they took an appeal. Judge Smith wrote a lengthy decision and sort of beat [the case] to death to dissuade the losing party."

Brown and Random House also won a November 2005 case in U.S. District Court in Manhattan in which author Lewis Perdue sought $150 million in damages, claiming "The Da Vinci Code" infringed on the copyright of his book "Daughter of God." Perdue's claim also sought to stop the release of the movie version of "The Da Vinci Code," starring Tom Hanks and directed by Ron Howard.

Yesterday's verdict appears to clear legal obstacles to the film's May 19 release. "As we've been saying all along, we are proceeding with our plans for the release of the film," Sony Pictures spokesman Jim Kennedy said in a statement.

As for the multitudes of "Da Vinci Code" fans, the allegations and lawsuits haven't been a deal breaker -- and may have fanned their frenzy. Since its release in the United States last week, the paperback version of the novel has sold more than a half-million books, and an initial printing of 5 million has been upped to 6 million, publisher Anchor Books said this week.

That's one more reason Brown is pleased the trial is over. "After devoting so much time and energy to this case," he said, "I'm eager to get back to writing my new novel."