The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail: Difference between revisions

The 2003 [[conspiracy fiction]] novel ''[[The Da Vinci Code]]'' by [[Dan Brown]] makes reference to this book, also liberally using most of the above claims as key plot elements;<ref name="Brown 2003"/> indeed, in 2005 Baigent and Leigh unsuccessfully sued Brown's publisher, [[Random House]], for [[plagiarism]], on the grounds that Brown's book makes extensive use of their research and that one of the characters is named Leigh, has a surname (Teabing) which is an [[anagram]] of Baigent, and has a physical description strongly resembling Henry Lincoln. In his novel, Brown also mentions ''Holy Blood, Holy Grail'' as an acclaimed international bestseller<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Dan |author-link=Dan Brown |title=[[The Da Vinci Code]] |date=2003}} Chapter 60</ref> and claims it as the major contributor to his hypothesis. Perhaps as a result of this mention, the authors (minus Henry Lincoln) of ''Holy Blood'' sued Dan Brown for [[copyright infringement]]. They claimed that the central framework of their plot had been stolen for the writing of ''The Da Vinci Code''. The claim was rejected by [[High Court of Justice|High Court]] Judge [[Peter Smith (judge)|Peter Smith]] on April 6, 2006, who ruled that "their argument was vague and shifted course during the trial and was always based on a weak foundation." It was found that the publicity of the trial had significantly boosted sales of ''Holy Blood'' (according to figures provided by [[Nielsen BookScan]] and [[The Bookseller|Bookseller magazine]]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQVP7b.oSjXQ&refer=culture |title=Da Vinci Code' Lawsuit Lifts Sales Before Judgment |website=Bloomberg News |date=6 April 2006}}</ref>). The court ruled that, in effect, because it was published as a work of (alleged) history, its premises legally could be freely interpreted in any subsequent fictional work without any copyright infringement.