Dan Brown managed to avoid $150 million in damages author Lewis Perdue had sought in a legal ruling that characterized his blockbuster book THE DA VINCI CODE as an "intellectual" work, as claimed that the best-selling author infringed the copyright of his novels "Daughter of God" and "The Da Vinci Legacy."
According to the court ruling, Dan Brown did not plagiarize he basic premise of "Daughter of God," including notions of a "divine feminine" nor the transition from a female to a male-dominated church under Roman Emperor Constantine, as perdue has alleged.
Judge George Daniels of U.S. District Court in New York, who made a detailed analysis of the plots of the two books, said that "ideas and general literary themes themselves are unprotectible under the copyright law".
"A reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that 'The Da Vinci Code' is substantially similar to 'Daughter of God'" and "any slightly similar elements are on the level of generalized or otherwise unprotectable ideas", the judge added.
Brown's book "is simply a different story," Daniels concluded.
While Perdue's lawyer Bruce Lederman declined to comment, Elizabeth McNamara, a lawyer for Brown, said she and her client were pleased with the decision.
RESURSEMultimilion-dollar "Da Vinci Code" adaptation to be filmed in Lincoln
Find us on Google+
No user comments yet.
Be the first to express your opinion!
