MORE ON THE DA VINCI CODE LAWSUIT, a story I noted briefly last October. The London Times has the latest in an article from yesterday:

The Times February 25, 2006

Author breaks code of silence
By Frances Gibb and Ben Hoyle
The reclusive writer of The Da Vinci Code is being forced to defend a copyright action that could scupper the release of a blockbuster film

THE fate of what is expected to be this year’s biggest film is hanging on the decision of a High Court judge.

The British release of The Da Vinci Code, due on May 19, could be delayed or even halted if a copyright claim by the authors of a non-fiction book, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, is upheld.

Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who co-wrote the book 22 years ago, claim breach of copyright on the ground that the “architecture” or complex structure of their book — its essential theory — was plagiarised in Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code.

And next week the reclusive multimillionaire author will step out of the shadows into a courtroom. At stake is the vast fortune he has made from his worldwide cult hit and the millions more he will make from the eagerly awaited film.

Brown will be in London to defend his blend of conspiracy theory, sinister secret societies and thrilling adventure from the ground-breaking copyright claim whose significance could far outstrip its estimated £10 million worth.

He will be the key defence witness in an action brought against Random House, the parent publishers. The claim has the potential to set a precedent in copyright law, over the extent to which one author can draw on another’s ideas.

If the judge upholds the claim, Baigent and Leigh could seek an injunction preventing further infringement, affecting further sales of the book and delaying release of the film. Alternatively they could seek a share of profits.

[...]

Le me see if I have this straight. The author of a silly novel is being sued by the authors of a bogus "nonfiction" book because the author used their bogus ideas? It's true that rubbish writing is copyrighted, but rubbish ideas? I'm not a lawyer and I know even less about British copyright law that American, but I cannot see how this case can have any merit. Arrangements of words are copyrighted, but ideas (and one of Brown's characters even credits Baigent's and Leigh's book in the novel) are not. If you violate copyright when you cite someone else's work and use their ideas (but not their words) for your own work, then all scientists and scholars would be in trouble.

It would be interesting to hear Stephen Carlson's take on this one.

Interestingly, the print version of the article, which I have on my desk, adds a sentence that seems to have been deleted from the online version: "Cynics suggest that the claim has arisen from the book's huge success, which has also increased sales of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." The cynical viewpoint has a certain logic to it. If they're sure the free publicity will increase the sales of their worthless book, the authors may not care whether they will or lose the case.

UPDATE (27 February): Stephen Carlson replies on his blog Hypotyposeis and in a comment on The Busybody blog. He confirms that this lawsuit arises from a peculiarity in British copyright law.

Incidentally (cross-file under "It's a Small World"), Stephen mentions a similar (and unsuccessful) American lawsuit over the 1975 movie The Hindenburg. It happens that I was in that movie; I played the cabin boy. (I'm afraid that, although I did have a few spoken lines, I didn't make it onto the cast list, so you'll just have to trust me on this one. Or rent the movie and look for the kid calling "Cablegram for Mr. Edward Douglas.")