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 reason did the London court provide for its decision?

Historical research is fair game for fiction authors to use in their work.
Historical research can only be used with the original author’s permission.
Historical research is fair to use in nonfiction, but not in works of fiction.
Historical research is copyright protected and can never be shared or borrowed.

Answer 1

Historical research is fair game for fiction authors to use in their work.