![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Blythe Brown probably acquired it no later than November 2000 and was using it for research although Dan Brown either did not know that or did not use the material when writing the Synopsis.ĭan Brown did not use HBHG when he wrote the first 190 Pages delivered in March 2002 but Blythe could still have been working with it then (whether he knew or not). However his contention that neither he nor his wife acquired or read HBHG until very late in the writing process is rejected. When Dan Brown wrote the Synopsis for DVC he did not use HBHG but used other sources provided to him by Blythe Brown. Such copying cannot amount to substantial copying of the text of HBHG and the Claimants have never said it does. However this is not alleged to a copyright infringement either so does not assist the Claimants. The majority of the language copying Claims were established but they are not claimed to be textual infringement of the copyright in HBHG and so do not assist the Claimants.Ī comparison of the language of the Central Themes with the text of HBHG and DVC compared by reference to the VSS shows copying of the text from HBHG into DVC. The reasons for the dismissal are as follows:Ģ.1 Holy Blood Holy Grail does not have a Central Theme as contended by the Claimants: it was an artificial creation for the purposes of the litigation working back from the Da Vinci Code.Ģ.2 Holy Blood Holy Grail has much more to it than the Central Themes as expressed so that the Claimants contention that HBHG has very little apart from the Central Themes is not correct.Ģ.3 Even if the Central Themes were copied they are too general or of too low a level of abstraction to be capable of protection by copyright law.Ģ.4 The Central Themes are merely a selective number of facts and ideas artificially taken out of HBHG for the purpose of the litigation.Ģ.5 There is no “Architecture” or “Structure” to be found in HBHG or the Central Themes as contended by the Claimants nor has Dan Brown infringed any such Architecture or Structure or substantially copied HBHG when he wrote DVC although it is clear it was used to write the Langdon/Teabing lectures.Ģ.6 The Claimants have failed to establish at least 4 or possibly 5 of the Themes are either in HBHG or in DVC which further weakened their case.Īccordingly there is no copyright infringement either by textual copying or non textual copying of a substantial part of HBHG by means of copying the Central Themes. The Claimants’ Claim fails and is dismissed. Mr John Baldwin QC and Mr James Abrahams (instructed by Arnold & Porter(UK) LLP) for the Defendant Mr Jonathan Rayner James QC and Mr Andrew Norris (instructed by Orchard Brayton Graham LLP) for the Claimants The entire judgment is available but most will be happy with Baigent and Leigh v Random House: summary of judgment ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |