Dan Brown is in court over possible
copyright infringement. Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are claiming
that Brown basically copied a book they published in 1992, called Holy
Blood. Dan is claiming that he came up with the idea of his book,
before their book was ever published, which is impossible to prove,
because he has no proof to back up his statement.
LONDON (Reuters) – The lawyer representing two
historians who accuse Dan Brown of copying their work in his
best-seller “The Da Vinci Code” told a British court on Tuesday he
suspected the author had lied in his evidence.Brown, in the
witness box for a second day, was forced to defend his assertion that
he had not read “The Holy Blood, and the Holy Grail” when he came up
with the idea for his thriller.Michael Baigent and Richard
Leigh, co-authors of the 1982 “Holy Blood” book, who are suing Brown’s
British publisher Random House, allege that he lifted their ideas
wholesale.Part of Brown’s defense has been to say he wrote the
synopsis for “The Da Vinci Code”, one of the most successful novels
with sales of around 40 million copies, before he became familiar with
the “Holy Blood” book.
A Diffident and timid Brown is having to get used to the media circus
that is surrounding this case. Although, the media is not as
concentrated on him as they were during the Michael Jackson case, it is
still drawing a lot of attention.
Personally, I don?€™t believe the ?€œDa Vinci Code?€ for one moment. I
was talked into buying it, but I put it down after two chapters from
disgust. Does anyone have a comment on this very touchy subject?
Powered by FireStats