Baigent & Anor v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247 (28 March 2007)

Baigent & Anor v The Random House Group Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 247 (28 March 2007)

The Court of Appeal held that, even accepting the trial judge's findings that some material from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was used in 'The Da Vinci Code', what was taken was at too high a level of abstraction and generality to be protected by copyright, and did not constitute a substantial part of the claimants' work. Therefore, there was no actionable infringement.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 247
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Baigent; Claimant/appellant: Richard Leigh; Defendant/respondent: The Random House Group Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal (copyright Infringement) / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Substantial Part, Ideas Vs Expression, Literary Works, Originality, Appellate Review
Intellectual Property Copyright Law Copyright Infringement Substantial Part Ideas Vs Expression Literary Works Originality Appellate Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Baigent

Claimant/appellant

Richard Leigh

Claimant/appellant

The Random House Group Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (copyright Infringement) / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dan Brown's 'The Da Vinci Code' infringed the copyright in 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' by copying a substantial part of it
  2. 2 Whether what was allegedly copied constituted a substantial part and was protected expression rather than unprotected ideas

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that, even accepting the trial judge's findings that some material from 'The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail' was used in 'The Da Vinci Code', what was taken was at too high a level of abstraction and generality to be protected by copyright, and did not constitute a substantial part of the claimants' work. Therefore, there was no actionable infringement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No copyright infringement found
  • No order for retrial or further relief