UK: Behind The Headlines Of Da Vinci: Inspiration Or Infringement?

Last Updated: 5 August 2007
Article by Caroline Turner

Originally published The In-House Lawyer, June, 2007

Publishers and authors may be breathing a collective sigh of relief following the recent confirmation by the Court of Appeal in Baigent and another v The Random House Group Ltd (the Da Vinci case) that The Da Vinci Code does not infringe the copyright in an earlier work, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail.

On the face of it, the case appears to uphold the commonly cited (if somewhat generalised) premise that ‘copyright protects expression, not ideas’.

However, it can be dangerous to over-simplify this principle. Authors and publishers (as well as creatives in other media) still need to be cautious about the extent to which they take inspiration from existing copyright works. On the one hand, it is beyond doubt that copying a substantial part of the text of a literary work can constitute copyright infringement. On the other, it is clear that the adoption of pure ideas will not amount to copyright infringement.

However, as Da Vinci and the other cases on this area of law demonstrate, it can be a very difficult task to define the boundary between the mere taking of general concepts and ideas, and copying in the copyright sense.

DA VINCI: THE CLAIM

The facts of this much-publicised case are familiar. The claimants, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, alleged that Dan Brown’s best-selling work of ‘faction’ The Da Vinci Code (DVC) infringed the copyright in their work of ‘historical conjecture’ The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail (HBHG). In 2004 Baigent and Leigh brought an action for breach of copyright against the publisher of DVC, Random House (which also happened to be the publisher of HBHG). The claim was not based upon direct ‘textual’ copying (due to insufficient instances of verbatim copying). However, acknowledging that they could not claim copyright solely in the ideas or theories expounded in HBHG, the claimants alleged that Brown had taken the ‘central theme’ of HBHG, which amounted to some 15 elements of their book.

DA VINCI: THE DECISION

In 2006 the High Court held that DVC did not infringe the copyright in HBHG. Peter Smith J found that although some of the central theme was reproduced in DVC, the common elements were at too general a level to justify being protected against copying. To constitute an infringement the claimants would have needed to show not only that ideas or facts from the central theme were taken, but also that some ‘architecture’ connecting or combining the elements of the central theme was substantially copied. The claim failed on several grounds. Critically, the Court held that the central theme itself was not genuine, but was an ‘artificial contrivance’ created for the purpose of asserting infringement. (It was unfortunate for the claimants that Leigh himself expressly admitted as much in giving his evidence.) The claimants also failed to show any architecture, other than ‘a lame chronological order’, which was too general and simply a pretence at structure to found the action.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision in the High Court and clarified certain issues arising from the High Court judgment, including that the question at hand was not whether the central theme itself qualified for protection as a copyright work, but whether the central theme (if it existed) was itself a substantial part of HBHG.

The Court of Appeal also gave some useful guidance in a more general copyright infringement context, particularly the non-exhaustive checklist provided by Mummery LJ (see box).

NON-EXHAUSTIVE INFRINGEMENT CHECKLIST (MUMMERY LJ)

  1. What were the similarities between the alleged infringing work and the original copyright work?
  2. What access, direct or indirect, did the author of the alleged infringing work have to the original copyright work?
  3. Did the author of the alleged infringing work make some use in his work of material derived by him, directly or indirectly, from the original work?
  4. If the defendant contends that no such use is made, what is his explanation for the similarities between the alleged infringing work and the original copyright work? Are they coincidental or similar sources?
  5. If use was made of the original copyright work, did the use amount in all the circumstances to a substantial part of the original work?
  6. What are the factors which justify evaluating the part copied in the alleged infringing work as a substantial part?

OTHER CASES ON THE IDEA/ EXPRESSION DICHOTOMY

Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal considered the cases of Ravenscroft v Herbert and Harman Pictures NV v Osborne, which arose from similar facts.

In Ravenscroft, Trevor Ravenscroft argued that James Herbert’s novel The Spear had copied a substantial part of his book The Spear of Destiny. The judge in that case found for the claimant, as he considered that Herbert’s book was actually based on Ravenscroft’s historical work, and that Herbert had not even conducted his own research outside reading Ravenscroft’s book. However, the judge also found 50 instances of direct copying of text, which almost certainly contributed to the finding of infringement.

In Harman Pictures, John Osborne’s screenplay for The Charge of the Light Brigade was held to have been copied from Cecil Woodham-Smith’s historical work The Reason Why. As in DVC, there was little or no direct textual copying. However, this case differed from Da Vinci in that a large number of the scenes were almost identical and several lines in the screenplay mirrored the book. The infringing work therefore showed similarity of incidents, locations and characters, which amounted to copying significantly greater than the ‘copying’ alleged (let alone established) by Baigent and Leigh.

These earlier decisions no doubt encouraged Baigent and Leigh in bringing their claim. However, there are obvious dissimilarities between these cases and Da Vinci. The claimants drastically underestimated the evidence that is necessary for the court to accept that infringement has taken place where there is no reproduction of a substantial amount of text.

IMPACT OF THE CASE

Although there was no copyright infringement on the particular facts of the Da Vinci case, looking behind the headlines at the judgment reveals that the Court did not rule out the possibility of copyright infringement claims that do not rely on copying of actual text.

Although the Court of Appeal was hesitant to leave the door wide open to future copyright claims in relation solely to ‘ideas’ or ‘themes’, it specifically confirmed that the original elements in the plot of a play or a novel can constitute a substantial part of a work so that copyright may be infringed by a work that does not reproduce a single sentence of the original.

Consequently, if the claimants’ central theme had been a combination of features from HBHG sufficiently clear and linked so as to correspond to the original elements in the plot of a play or a novel, the decision might have been different.

Following Ravenscroft it is likely that the court will infer that authors intend that material from their historical and reference works can be used by others so as to avoid the work becoming sterile. In other words, it is likely that a greater amount of copying is permissible from such works.

What is clear from the Court of Appeal judgment in Da Vinci is that (in the absence of literal copying of text) to be protected by copyright, the expression of the idea in the claimant’s work will need to be sufficiently clear and developed to be easily identifiable in the defendant’s work. The key element of the claimants’ failure in Da Vinci was the inability to clearly express a genuine central theme and architecture connecting the points of that theme.

In conclusion, rather than breathe a sigh of relief at the failure of Baigent and Leigh’s claim, authors and publishers should heed the subtle warning of this judgment. Copyright protection is available for concepts more abstract than those expressed in text. However, the question remains whether the evidence of copying must be as overwhelming as that in Harman Pictures, or whether it simply has to be clearer and more substantial than that offered by Baigent and Leigh. For now there is a grey area between what amounts to infringement as opposed to merely inspiration – it is all a question of degree.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions