Lijit Search

‘Da Vinci Code’ Author Wins Plagiarism Case

By Jonathan Bailey • Aug 6th, 2005 • Category: Legal Issues, News

Several news sources have reported that Dan Brown, the author of “The Da Vinci Code”, won his battle in Federal Distict Court over accused plagiarism in the book.

Lewis Perdue, author of “Daughter of God” and “The Da Vinci Legacy”, claimed that Brown stole many of the ideas for the “The Da Vinci Code” from his books including the “divine feminine” and the role of Roman Emperor Constantine in converting the church to from female-dominated to male-dominated.

U.S. District Judge George B. Daniels felt differently. He said that “A reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that The Da Vinci Code is substantially similar to Daughter of God.” He went on to say, quite correctly, that, “Ideas and general literary themes themselves are unprotectible under the copyright law.”

The case is interesting because it shows how much of a gray area plagiarism really is. If we assume that Mr. Brown actually did read Mr. Pedue’s works and steal the ideas, a big jump in my opinion, then the case doesn’t change very much. Copyright law by in large protects words, images and sounds, not ideas. Ideas fall under patent law and, thankfully, there’s no such thing as a literary patent.

If this had been a case of word-for-word copying or even paraphrasing, it seems likely that the case would have turned out very differently.

Courts have also offered some protection for ideas when dealing with copyright laws. Characters, for example, are protected. This is why fan fiction is automatically the property of the original creators. However, it’s often difficult to prove that two characters are the same person, especially when the latter changes various details and doesn’t try to trade on the public’s knowledge of the previous author’s work.

In the end though, the court found that, if Mr. Brown did lift anything, it was not specific enough to warrant infringement. Since there are a relatively limted number of ideas available out there, especially in the world of historical drama, copyright protection of a vague idea is a pretty scary notion.

Regardless, it’ll be interesting to see how this one progresses through the appeals courts. Perhaps more concrete infringement will come to the surface then.

[tags]Plagiarism, Da Vinci, Copyright Infringement, Writing[/tags]

Jonathan Bailey is The Webmaster and author of Plagiarism Today, which he founded in 2005 as a way to help Webmasters going through content theft problems get accurate information and stay up to date on the rapidly-changing field. He is also a consultant to Webmasters and companies to help them devise practical content protection strategies and develop good copyright policies.
Email this author | All posts by Jonathan Bailey

Viewing 3 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    I have only glanced through Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" and read some of the comprehensive reviews.I also watched a BBC documentary on the controversy of the subject matter. The controversy as usual has done a lot for the book and made it a best seller just like Salman Rushdie's "Satanic Verses". Personally I don't like opportunists who deliberately steal ideas and start a fire to attract public attention like raising a false alarm of fire on the mountain or screaming wolf just to raise dust. I think Dan Brown is one of such writers of fortune. I call them "Prize Writers".I am only hearing of the other author Lewis Perdue, now in your blog.So, I cannot take sides until I have read the books in question.

    I once produced my play entitled "Sleepless Night" and before I knew it, a film with the same title was later released. But, I ignored it. I don't really worry much about copyrights if the content is not much.
    • ^
    • v
    i think it was an attempt by lewis perdue to get more people to read his book.

    anyway, i blogged this myself :)

    http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1/archives//a...
    • ^
    • v
    The Da Vinci Code Decision





    About this Dan Brown thing: He won a round, but the case is far from over.

    The headlines were wrong that the judge has cleared The Da Vinci Code of copyright infringement issues or that the issue has been settled.

    Contrary to the headlines, Judge Daniels did not "acquit" Brown, but quite to the contrary, acknowledged that there were many similarities in the setting, plot and characters, in other words the key ideas making up my books. However, in one of those interesting quirks of law, he found that Brown's expression of the ideas was different and, therefore, that in the legal meaning of the word he had not plagiarized. We believe the evidence the Judge improperly excluded from consideration proves that my expression was infringed upon, not merely my ideas.

    There has been no trial on the issues. What occurred exploits a quirk in American copyright infringement law whereby all facts and expert witness testimony can be excluded from consideration. This quirk is the "lay reader" test which says that the judgement relies on the gut-level response of an average reader as to whether similarity exists or not.

    Ironically, the controversy with Da Vinci Code began with average "lay" readers – strangers who sent me unsolicited emails saying they felt I had been plagiarized. While this is a self-selected population, those who feel I have been plagiarized run approximately 10-to-1 in my favor. This indicates there is a substantial legal question to be addressed.

    But NONE of those true, average "lay" readers – many of whom were identified in our legal briefs --counted. Only one reader counted in this case: Judge George Daniels who obviously fell into that 1-in-10 category. Because of that, I did not get a trial. Justice demands that a jury hear the evidence.

    The summary judgment process has an admirable goal: to keep frivolous lawsuits from clogging up the courts. However, as my legal team amply demonstrated with expert testimony and hundreds of solid examples of fact and similarity, this legal action is well-founded on fact, raises substantial unresolved issues and deserves a trial.

    The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has been clear on the following issues:

    (1) Summary judgement should NOT be granted unless there is "no genuine issue of material fact."

    (2) The Court should, "resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party." I am the "non-moving party."

    (3) A motion of summary judgement should NOT be a decision on whether copyright infringement has taken place. "Clearly, the duty of a court on a motion for summary judgment is to determine whether there are any genuine issues of material fact to be resolved by trial and not to decide factual issues."

    (More details about this as well as the case citation can be accessed at: http://davincicrock.blogspot.com/2005/05/2nd-ci...

    Thus, I believe Judge Daniels erred in his decision. In addition, item (3), above, makes it clear that the Judge's decision should not be considered a decision on the merits of whether copyright infringement has taken place.

    Furthermore, I have never claimed to have copyrighted a notion, a fact, a plot, a bit of history, an idea or any other nonsense.

    This quote from the judge's decision is totally false:

    "Perdue alleged that Brown copied the basic premise of Daughter of
    God, including notions that history is controlled by victors, not
    losers, and the importance of the Roman Emperor Constantine in
    requiring a transition from a female- to a male-dominated religion."

    Just totally incorrect. Take a look for yourself at the original legal papers (including the expert witness reports) filed with the court, at: http://www.davincilegacy.com/Infringement/ and you'll see that "expression" is what was infringed and what this suit is about.
 

Trackbacks

(Trackback URL)

close Reblog this comment
Powered by Disqus · Learn more
blog comments powered by Disqus