Brown in Not a Plagiarist Shocker
Hooray! Dan Brown might be widely accused of being a bad writer; a purveyor of lowbrow, commercial fiction; an intellectual lightweight; an outright liar; and a corruptor of the reading tastes of several nations (often by people who have glanced briefly through at least one of his books) – but at least he’s not a plagiarist as well.
What is particularly interesting about this story is the sheer contemptuous thoroughness with which the plaintiffs’ case seems to have been squashed – the judge’s remarks, the refusal of leave to appeal, the awarding of costs. Good, because I feared the precedent it would have set. From BBC Online, and the full story is well worth reading:
Court rejects Da Vinci copy claim
The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown did not breach the copyright of an earlier book, London’s High Court has ruled.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, sued Random House, publisher of both books.
Mr Brown said the verdict “shows that this claim was utterly without merit”.
The ruling clears the way for the Da Vinci Code movie’s release in May. Mr Baigent and Mr Leigh must pay 85% of Random House’s costs of almost £1.3m.