The Da Vinci Code Verdict is in

April 8

The verdict finally came back today in the Da Vinci Code trial. Richard Leigh and Michael Baigent have lost their case, which was brought against their own publishers, Random House, and been ordered to pay Brown's court costs of £1.3 million, plus their own of £600,000. Both will no doubt have to re-mortgage their homes; in fact it will probably bankrupt them. I bet Henry Lincoln, the third author of the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is glad that he chose not to get involved.

Random House are the ones who really benefit, not just in terms of publicity, but also through increased book sales. They are one of the biggest names in publishing in both the UK and US, who combined with the other big two publishers, control nearly 75 percent of book sales in both of markets. The ironic thing is that since all of this kicked off, both books have had a huge surge in sales. Dan Brown has gone back into the best sellers list, and HBHG has gone from sales of a meager 3500 a year to 7000 a week, with a special hardback edition recently brought out.

It is good publicity for the film as well, which is due for release next week, featuring Arthur, the husband of my good friend Gillyann, as an extra. Some of the more cynical reporters have suggested that the whole court case was a rouse by both authors for more publicity, but I can't see that, as to be honest, there are cheaper and better ways.

More Da Vinci Code - what is plagarisation?

March 14

If Baigent and Leigh are successful in their claim, the film of the Da Vinci Code may have to be scrapped, since this would also be a plagarisation of their work. I thought the meaning of the term plagarisation was to pass someone else's work off as your own, but according to the Society of Authors, when I spoke to them recently about copyright issues, the term is much broader than that. Some writers have claimed plagarisation and won their cases on the basis of just a few lines, or even words. The key seems to be, do you rely on the skill of another in order to get the point across in your own work? I think to an extent all writers do, since we utilise other sources for reference material. The key seems to be how this is acknowledged and the way it which it is actually done. Like everything else, it is all in the wording, but then again that is what we writers do isn't it?

I don't think it is anything that I could be accused of, as when discussing these concepts in my own work I tend to use phrases like 'According to the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail etc'. This seems to be a good way of protecting yourself. One has to think of how you would feel if someone else were to copy copious text from your work and re-word it without acknowledgement.

The Da Vinci Code trial - elaborate publicity stunt?

March 13

I was discussing the Da Vinci Code trial today with friends on the Internet. This will certainly be one to watch, which will have ramifications for the entire publishing industry.

The ironic thing is that both books were published by Random House, but then most are, as they are the biggest name in publishing worldwide, with so many imprints they take up almost a whole page in the Writers and Artists Handbook. I cannot comment too much on this as I am one of the few people who has not read any of Dan Brown's books. He is right when he says The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is not the only book to mention the so called Jesus bloodline, since many others do, notably Lawrence Gardner in Bloodline of the Holy Grail. The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail was however the first book to mention this. It was written incidentally by three writers, the third of which, Henry Lincoln has refused to comment regarding the lawsuit. I shall be watching this one very carefully.