bad_meetz_evil
04-07-2006, 08:46 AM
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/europe/04/07/uk.davinci.court/story.brown.code.gi.jpg
LONDON, England -- A British judge is expected to deliver his verdict today on whether U.S. author Dan Brown plagiarized the work of two historians in his best selling novel "The Da Vinci Code."
"Da Vinci" is one of the most successful novels of all time, selling over 40 million copies since it was released in March 2003. But the losing side in this gripping court-room battle faces nearly $2 million dollars in legal costs.
In court the former English teacher's credibility is on trial amid claims he plagiarized the 1982 nonfiction book "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail," written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.
The authors have sued publisher Random House, claiming Brown ripped off a key theory from their book -- that Jesus survived his crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had children -- a controversial storyline that has intrigued readers.
After three weeks of hearings last month, High Court justice Peter Smith must decide whether Brown's blockbuster "appropriated the architecture" of their book, according to Reuters reports.
Copyright lawyers have told The Associated Press they believe historians may have trouble convincing the judge they can copyright general ideas, while publishing bosses say the case underscores the saying: "Where there's a hit, there's a writ."
The New Hampshire-based Brown has told the court he "remains astounded" by the plagiarism suit and says the claim that he has "hijacked and exploited their work is simply untrue."
Lawyers for Baigent and Leigh said "there is no credible explanation" as to how Brown crafted his story, except that he copied it from the "The Holy Blood, Holy Grail."
Taking creative license with history is the lifeblood of fiction, says best-selling author Jeffrey Archer.
"You could pick up any book, you could pick up the Bible and decide to write a book about Jesus and they would say now wait a minute, it's all here, in the Bible. I think it's totally farcical," said Archer.
Brown has said that he and his wife, Blythe, read "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail" while researching the book, Reuters said. They also read 38 other books and hundreds of documents.
"Da Vinci" might draw on history, but in the end the book is all made up and that could be its best defense.
The movie of the book, starring Tom Hanks, is shot and ready to go in May, with five million new paperback copies headed to bookstores.
But a win by the plaintiffs could put the movie on hold.
In August last year, Brown won a court ruling against Lewis Perdue, who alleged The Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels, "Daughter of God" and "The Da Vinci Legacy," AP reported.
LONDON, England -- A British judge is expected to deliver his verdict today on whether U.S. author Dan Brown plagiarized the work of two historians in his best selling novel "The Da Vinci Code."
"Da Vinci" is one of the most successful novels of all time, selling over 40 million copies since it was released in March 2003. But the losing side in this gripping court-room battle faces nearly $2 million dollars in legal costs.
In court the former English teacher's credibility is on trial amid claims he plagiarized the 1982 nonfiction book "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail," written by Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh.
The authors have sued publisher Random House, claiming Brown ripped off a key theory from their book -- that Jesus survived his crucifixion, married Mary Magdalene, and had children -- a controversial storyline that has intrigued readers.
After three weeks of hearings last month, High Court justice Peter Smith must decide whether Brown's blockbuster "appropriated the architecture" of their book, according to Reuters reports.
Copyright lawyers have told The Associated Press they believe historians may have trouble convincing the judge they can copyright general ideas, while publishing bosses say the case underscores the saying: "Where there's a hit, there's a writ."
The New Hampshire-based Brown has told the court he "remains astounded" by the plagiarism suit and says the claim that he has "hijacked and exploited their work is simply untrue."
Lawyers for Baigent and Leigh said "there is no credible explanation" as to how Brown crafted his story, except that he copied it from the "The Holy Blood, Holy Grail."
Taking creative license with history is the lifeblood of fiction, says best-selling author Jeffrey Archer.
"You could pick up any book, you could pick up the Bible and decide to write a book about Jesus and they would say now wait a minute, it's all here, in the Bible. I think it's totally farcical," said Archer.
Brown has said that he and his wife, Blythe, read "The Holy Blood, the Holy Grail" while researching the book, Reuters said. They also read 38 other books and hundreds of documents.
"Da Vinci" might draw on history, but in the end the book is all made up and that could be its best defense.
The movie of the book, starring Tom Hanks, is shot and ready to go in May, with five million new paperback copies headed to bookstores.
But a win by the plaintiffs could put the movie on hold.
In August last year, Brown won a court ruling against Lewis Perdue, who alleged The Da Vinci Code copied elements of two of his novels, "Daughter of God" and "The Da Vinci Legacy," AP reported.