Question

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh v. The Random House Group Limited
The Da Vinci Code was a publishing sensation when it was released in 2003. Author Dan Brown’s novel hinged on the concept that the mythical Holy Grail was not a chalice, but was instead the bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. The story put forth the idea that they had had a child together.

Authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh strongly objected. They claimed that Brown had taken the “central theme” and “architecture” for his novel from their nonfiction book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Published in 1982, it also explored the idea that Jesus had a child with Mary Magdalene and their bloodline was the “true” Holy Grail.

Baigent and Leigh decided to file a lawsuit. Although they shared a publisher with Dan Brown, Random House, the authors claimed his work was an example of copyright infringement. The case was filed at a court in London, where Baigent and Leigh’s book was originally published. In 2006, the court ruled that authors are free to use historical research (or “historical conjecture,” in the case of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail) in works of fiction. In his decision, Justice Peter Smith stated, “It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way The Da Vinci Code has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright.”

What decision did a London court reach in this case?

The writing of The Da Vinci Code did not violate copyright law.
The writing of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail did not violate copyright law.
Brown should have asked permission from Baigent and Leigh to use their ideas.
Baigent and Leigh should have asked permission from Brown to use his ideas.

Answer 1

The writing of The Da Vinci Code did not violate copyright law.

The London court held authors can use historical research or conjecture in fiction and found no copyright infringement.