Unbeatable Brown: Supreme Court Tosses Latest 'Da Vinci' Rip-Off Claim
By Kimberly Maul
Monday, November 13 2006
Monday, November 13 2006
Published on AllBusiness.com
The U.S. Supreme Court Monday refused to hear an appeal from an author who said Dan Brown lifted parts of his own Da Vinci-themed thriller into megaseller The Da Vinci Code, Reuters reported.
Lewis Perdue, author of 2000's Daughter of God, claimed that parts of The Da Vinci Code were copied from his book. In response, Random House, Brown's publisher, filed a lawsuit seeking "declaratory judgment that [Brown's] work does not infringe on Perdue's," according to the Associated Press. Perdue subsequently filed a countersuit, in which he asked for $150 million in damages.
That's what got thrown out yesterday; Purdue was quick to point out that he didn't fire the first volley?at least, the first legal one?in this exchange. "Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web. Random House sued me; not the other way around," Perdue wrote on his blog. "One part of me is a little disappointed, but overall I am relieved to have this part of things over."
Random House claimed that the books were not similar and that, therefore, Brown's bestseller did not in fact infringe on Daughter's copyright. According to Reuters, Random House and Brown's lawyers described Daughter as a " 'shoot-em-up' thriller involving Nazis and Russian mafia, where husband and wife protagonists battle an ultranationalist Russian leader and a megalomaniacal cardinal seeking to depose the pope."
The Da Vinci Code, which is based on the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had children, involves a symbologist who must decipher clues about a secret society and Leonardo Da Vinci's artwork.
Perdue is not the first author to go against Random House and Brown in court. Earlier this year, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, unsuccessfully sued Brown and Random House in London's High Court.
Lewis Perdue, author of 2000's Daughter of God, claimed that parts of The Da Vinci Code were copied from his book. In response, Random House, Brown's publisher, filed a lawsuit seeking "declaratory judgment that [Brown's] work does not infringe on Perdue's," according to the Associated Press. Perdue subsequently filed a countersuit, in which he asked for $150 million in damages.
That's what got thrown out yesterday; Purdue was quick to point out that he didn't fire the first volley?at least, the first legal one?in this exchange. "Random House filed suit to silence the facts I was posting on the web. Random House sued me; not the other way around," Perdue wrote on his blog. "One part of me is a little disappointed, but overall I am relieved to have this part of things over."
Random House claimed that the books were not similar and that, therefore, Brown's bestseller did not in fact infringe on Daughter's copyright. According to Reuters, Random House and Brown's lawyers described Daughter as a " 'shoot-em-up' thriller involving Nazis and Russian mafia, where husband and wife protagonists battle an ultranationalist Russian leader and a megalomaniacal cardinal seeking to depose the pope."
The Da Vinci Code, which is based on the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had children, involves a symbologist who must decipher clues about a secret society and Leonardo Da Vinci's artwork.
Perdue is not the first author to go against Random House and Brown in court. Earlier this year, Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, the authors of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, unsuccessfully sued Brown and Random House in London's High Court.
