Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, they had a child and the bloodline still survives today. I apologize if I just ruined the storyline of Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code, but I doubt that is the case for anyone out there. Unless you’ve been living under a rock somewhere for the past few years, you know what this book is about and that it has been on the New York Times best-seller list for more than 155 weeks, 54 of which it spent at the top. In this time, it has sold over 43 million hardcover copies worldwide and, on Tuesday, it had the largest paperback release ever-more than five million copies. To put this into perspective, the massively popular Harry Potter books were released in paperback at two million copies for each book. To top all of this off, a movie based off the book is slated to be released on May 19. Directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon, the movie seems to be on the path for success. Unfortunately, with this much popularity, the book, of course, has its critics.
In a breach-of-copyright lawsuit that opened Monday Feb. 27, 2006, the author, Dan Brown, and his publisher, Random House, were accused of plagiarizing many of the ideas for his novel from the 1982 book Holy Blood and Holy Grail. While the book was written by three different authors, only two, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, have chosen to enter into this lawsuit. Henry Lincoln, the third author, is in poor health and has been unreachable for comment by all major news sources.
Sadly, this is not the first case that Brown has faced with accusations of plagiarism. In August 2005, he faced charges of copying from the books Daughter of God and The Da Vinci Legacy. In the end, the judge decided that Brown had done nothing wrong and ruled in favor of the author. This time, however, things don’t seem to be as clear-cut.
Baigent’s statement on March 8 that some of his claims may have been incorrect has thrown serious doubt into the minds of many about the validity of the case. On March 13, Brown, while testifying, stated that he did use some of the ideas from the Baigent and Leigh’s book. In addition, he mentioned that the accusers’ book is named as a source within the text of his own best-selling novel. Not only is the book mentioned, but also the authors’ names are used to create a character’s name in the book. The name is Leigh Teabing, a combination of Richard Leigh’s last name and an anagram of the Michael Baigent’s last name.
“Messieurs Baigent and Leigh are only two of a number of authors who have written about the bloodline story and yet I went out of my way to mention them for being the ones who brought the theory to mainstream attention,” Brown said. He is also quoted as saying, “For them to suggest, as I understand they do, that I have hijacked and exploited their work is simply untrue.”
Both Random House and Brown are confident that they will prevail in this case.
The lawyers for the Random House believe that the ideas that are being debated are far too general to be protected by copyright laws. Many other works have discussed this possibility. It is a common idea in certain circles of discussion.
With this lawsuit currently in The Royal Courts of Justice in England, many worry that the release of the movie could be delayed. Sony, who produced the movie, says this is not the case. They are standing firm with the current release date, and they believe that the outcome of the case will not affect it. However, if the accusers are successful in securing an injunction against all material based on Holy Blood and Holy Grail, there will more than likely be a delay.
Whatever the results of the suit, the enjoyment of millions of readers will be unchanged. The impending movie should expand the reach of Brown’s thriller and allow new audiences to find out exactly what the buzz is all about.
