Craig Hill
KC Hill
Paladin
Oracle of DelphiThe Da Vinci Code Court Case
May 21st 2006 04:22
The recent release of the Da Vinci Code on the big screen has left everyone talking, everywhere. To tell you the truth, I don’t even remember what on earth we used to talk about BEFORE the movie (or even the book) was released. Which can only mean one of two things. Either, that I am a 23 year old with the memory of a 103 year old, or that Dan Brown has cast a magic spell over us all so that we live and breathe the Da Vinci Code, for a little while at least.
So here I am, living it and breathing it while I tell you about the multi-million dollar court case that almost landed author Dan Brown in a very sticky situation:
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, decided to sue publisher Random House. They claimed that Brown’s book “appropriated the architecture” of their book. In simple terms, this means they were trying to argue that Brown breached copyright laws by copying a substantial amount of their book.
Brown did not deny that he had used Baigent and Leigh’s book as a source of information in writing The Da Vinci Code. He admits using common themes such as the present existence of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s bloodline and attempts by the Catholic Church to hide this. Brown even acknowledged the claimant authors in his book, in cryptic form. The character LEIGH TEABING was created by putting together Richard LEIGH’s surname and rearranging the letters of Michael BAIGENT’s surname. But according to the court, simply drawing on ideas in historical research is not enough to constitute a breach of copyright. The high court rejected the claimant’s case and ordered them to pay 85% of Random House’s legal costs. This is estimated to be over AUD $3 million.
What’s even more interesting than the outcome of the case is the written judgement by Justice Smith. His Honour created a code of his own by italicising letters throughout the 51-page summary. For days, people everywhere were trying to discover what the legal code was. It turned out to be a joke in Latin that I didn’t quite understand and I’m not so sure that very many other people did either. But hey, hats off to the guy for trying...
from www.wikipedia.com
So here I am, living it and breathing it while I tell you about the multi-million dollar court case that almost landed author Dan Brown in a very sticky situation:
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, decided to sue publisher Random House. They claimed that Brown’s book “appropriated the architecture” of their book. In simple terms, this means they were trying to argue that Brown breached copyright laws by copying a substantial amount of their book.
Brown did not deny that he had used Baigent and Leigh’s book as a source of information in writing The Da Vinci Code. He admits using common themes such as the present existence of Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s bloodline and attempts by the Catholic Church to hide this. Brown even acknowledged the claimant authors in his book, in cryptic form. The character LEIGH TEABING was created by putting together Richard LEIGH’s surname and rearranging the letters of Michael BAIGENT’s surname. But according to the court, simply drawing on ideas in historical research is not enough to constitute a breach of copyright. The high court rejected the claimant’s case and ordered them to pay 85% of Random House’s legal costs. This is estimated to be over AUD $3 million.
What’s even more interesting than the outcome of the case is the written judgement by Justice Smith. His Honour created a code of his own by italicising letters throughout the 51-page summary. For days, people everywhere were trying to discover what the legal code was. It turned out to be a joke in Latin that I didn’t quite understand and I’m not so sure that very many other people did either. But hey, hats off to the guy for trying...
| 91 |
| Vote |
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by Stanley
Anyone, else reading this wouldn’t have a clue as to what I am probably talking about since the law fraternity is an insular bunch.
Taking a note from your comment in your last entry I would even extend that unhappiness to law students, with a superiority complex! I also have an arts discipline with my background and I readily embrace that more than I do my law one. The thought processes are more complex and dynamic, while I am finding law to be rigid and full of dealing with semantics.
As with you I am also an aspiring writer and the like the more artistic ventures rather than law. My other goal is to become the most overqualified dole bludger! Boom-boom.
Comment by Stanley
Comment by Legally Brunette
My Wedding
By the way, I did an Arts degree too, majored in languages and LOVED it!