by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright March 3, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

ragged into Britain's High Court in London, international best-selling author of the 40- million-copy “The Da Vinci Code” Dan Brown finds himself defending a copyright infringement lawsuit by the authors of “Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” a 1982 bestseller by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, published by Random House. Eyebrows raised when the two authors sued Random House, the same publisher of Brown's book. Brown earned about $80 million in 2004 alone, attesting to the deep pockets prompting Baigent and Leigh in part to get their cut. In their lawsuit, the two authors claim that Brown ripped of the central theme of “Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” that Jesus married and had children with Mary Magdalene, whose lineage eventually mingled with the French monarchy, a closely guarded secret maintained by a clandestine society.

      Claiming that Brown infringed on their copyright, Baigent and Leigh allege that Brown used the central premise of “Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” as the main theme of "The Da Vinci Code,” though the authors don't accuse Brown of plagiarism. “This case is not about stultifying creative endeavor. It is not about seeking a monopoly on ideas or historical data. [But] it is not as though Brown lifted a discrete series of raw facts from ‘HBHG.' He has lifted the connection that join the points up,” said Baigent and Leigh's lawyer Jonathan Rayner James, arguing that Brown violated the authors' 1982 copyright. Brown's attorneys must show that he used other overlapping sources contributing to the original premise of his book, including Nikos Kazanzakus' 1960 “The Last Temptation of Chirist,” made in 1988 by renowned director Martin Scorsese into a controversial feature film.

      Attorneys for Random House, vigorously disputed the argument that Brown infringed on Baigent and Leigh's copyright. Brown claimed that by the time he saw their book, he had already completed the overall blueprint for “The Da Vinci Code.” “By the time we obtained a copy of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail,” I had already written the synopsis and the opening . . . and had in place the themes,” Brown wrote in a witness statement, not denying that he borrowed the central premise that Jesus had children with Mary Magdalane, a dark secret maintained by a furtive French society. Brown's lawyers insist that the best-selling author gave credit to Baigent and Leigh by mentioning “HGHG” in “The Da Vinci Code.” If Baigent and Leigh prevail in Britain's High Court, they could seek unspecified damages and an injunction against the May 19 release of “The Da Vinci Code” staring Tom Hanks.

      If Brown can't present other documentation for the theory that Christ married Mary Magdalene, had children and kept secret by a French society, it's going to be difficult for Britain's High Court to ignore Baigent and Leigh's claims. Unlike plagiarism, literary copyrights are designed to protect intellectual ideas, certainly relevant to general theme of “The Da Vinci Code.” In “Blood and the Holy Grail,” the authors' speculate that Christ never died on the cross, surviving and somehow relocating to France. “Suggesting a married Jesus is one thing, but questioning the Resurrection undermines the very heart of Christian belief,” said Brown, describing himself as a committed Christian but failing to dispute Baigent and Leigh's charge that he lifted the main theme of his book. Changing one element to a story doesn't reverse borrowing the overall theme.

      Calling Baigent and Leigh's claims “wild allegations,” Random House attorney Jonathan Baldwin rejected the idea that Brown infringed on the authors' 1982 copyright. Whether Baldwin thinks the authors' claims are “wild allegations” can't stop Brown from proving the (a) originality of his thesis or (b) lack of originality, based on documentation from sources other than “Blood and the Holy Grail.” There's no question that Baigent and Leigh want a piece of Brown's success. But the High Court must decide whether copyright laws were broken and, if so, to what extent. Baldwin disputed Baigent and Leigh's claim that “Mr. Brown has appropriated not only numerous pieces of the jigsaw puzzle but the organizational way [Baigent and Leigh] put it together.” Proving copyright violations in literary and academic world isn't easy, determining exactly who originated what ideas.

      No one disputes the originality of Dan Brown's dialogue, characters, scenarios or even the overall plot. Whether Brown lifted the central premise of his work from “Blood and the Holy Grail” is anyone's guess. When he faces the court, Brown must convince the judges that his ideas weren't inadvertently or deliberately taken from an earlier copyrighted work. “Dan Brown copied from ‘The Blood and the Holy Grail' and therefore the publication of the result by the defendant is in infringement of the copyright of my client in the United Kingdom,” James told the court, arguing his clients were entitled to relief. Brown must say more than he's a good Christian and believes in Easter. He must forcefully convince the court he originated the idea that Jesus married and had children with Mary Magdalene or found sources other than “The Blood and Holy Grail” to clear his good name.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.