Author Who Lost Copyright Case Over The Da Vinci Code In The US In 2007 Looks To Revive It In The UK In 2017

from the try-try-again dept

Thu, Oct 19th 2017 3:59pm — Timothy Geigner

Author Dan Brown is certainly not a stranger to copyright claims and lawsuits over his bestseller The Da Vinci Code. Not long after publishing the book in 2003 to wide acclaim, several legal actions took place against Brown and his publisher, as well as some action initiated by the publisher to stave off claims of copyright infringement and plagiarism. One such case that we did not cover here was brought by Jack Dunn of Massachusetts, who authored a book called The Vatican Boys, and sued Brown in Massachusetts for copyright infringement over the usual claims: there were claimed similarities in characters, plots, and factual assertions (including some that are erroneous in both). In 2007, Judge Michael Ponsor threw out the case, claiming that all the evidence Dunn's legal team provided amounted to thematic and structural similarities, which are not copyrightable.

For the proceeding decade, Dunn simply went away. That is until he found another law firm willing to file another copyright suit against Brown, but this time in the UK. The suit is reportedly being prepped for filing, with Dunn's side making much of the impending legal action.

Dunn has hired London-based media law firm Keystone Law. In a letter to Penguin Random House, Keystone stated they intended to issue proceedings for copyright infringement unless they received a credible explanation from Brown and his researcher wife, Blythe Brown, for what they perceive to be extraordinary similarities in both works.

Keystone Law’s letter stated: “There are hundreds of similarities between “The Vatican Boys” and “The Da Vinci Code” which comprise copying portions of TVB [“The Vatican Boys”] in the form of storylines, plots, characters, historical information, scenes, themes and even factual error which have been appropriated from TVB by Mr. and/or Mrs. Brown in writing The TDC [“The Da Vinci Code].”

It seems that the requested explanation from Brown or Penguin Random House will not be coming. In response, the publisher flatly rejected all of Dunn's claims and then helpfully put in written display, something like warning heads on pikes, all of the prior litigation by both Dunn and others that Brown and the publisher have fended off successfully.

There are several factors that should give Dunn and his legal team pause when it comes to actually filing this suit. Much of the reasoning by Dunn for filing this second lawsuit centers around his claim that the US ruling didn't properly evaluate the evidence he presented. That's unlikely to be the case. His reasoning for filing the suit in the UK, on the other hand, is flatly bizarre.

Dunn told MarketWatch he is now finalizing legal evidence in preparation for issuing copyright proceedings against Brown. Dunn, who is from Western Massachusetts, said “The Vatican Boys” was sold around New England upon publication, and he said he suspects Dan Brown read his book while he was living in Portsmouth, New Hampshire in the late 1990s.

Little of which factors at all as a basis for the UK being the proper venue for this lawsuit between two American authors. On top of that, it stretches the mind to believe that it has taken the better part of a decade for an author to come up with all of these dastardly similarities between his own work and one of the most widely read books in modern times. So too does it bend credulity to imagine that these newly discovered similarities are of the sort that are awarded copyright protection. After all, if the new evidence is more explosive than the old evidence, why wasn't it properly presented ten years ago?

We'll see if this suit ever gets filed. Given Brown's track record for defeating these sorts of attempts, I know on which party I'd be putting my money.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 1st circuit, copyright, dan brown, davinci code, jack dunn, jurisdiction, uk
Companies: keystone law, penguin random house

22 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:18pm

I don't know about the other claims, but...
...How can historical information be copyrightable, in the UK or anywhere else? That claim alone makes the others suspicious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TechDescartes (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 8:00pm
  
  Re: I don't know about the other claims, but...
  
  How can historical information be copyrightable, in the UK or anywhere else?
  
  You do realize that these books are fiction, right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 8:31pm
    
    Re: Re: I don't know about the other claims, but...
    Certainly. On the other hand, I do read a lot of what is known as historical fiction, and these books may be at least somewhat classed as such. Much is in fact fiction, and parts are actual history, at least in terms of the history the winners wrote. Those might be considered facts, and unless expressed in a unique way, like the phone book, facts are not copyrightable. At least in the US.
    
    The claim quoted in the article:
    
    "...in the form of storylines, plots, characters, historical information, scenes, themes and even factual error..."
    
    Seems to say information not otherwise 'invented' and/or characterized by the author.
    
    The claim of copying factual error might be they both used the same source (how does one prove 'factual error' on something that happened hundreds of years ago) and it may just be a matter of opinion as to that source being in error. Which brings to mind the possibility that both authors plagiarized or committed copyright infringement (unless the source is in the public domain) on the original author of those factual errors. Or they both re-characterized the same scenario from that other source.
    
    Hell, we have a hard time getting current history straight with all the 'fake news' and plausible deniability and other contretemps to obscure what is actually happening around. Imagine what the historians will write about when describing say the mid 1900's to the mid 2000's and how much of that will actually be right?
    
    It's a mess in any sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - TechDescartes (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 8:47pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: I don't know about the other claims, but...
      
      Imagine what the historians will write about when describing say the mid 1900's to the mid 2000's and how much of that will actually be right?
      
      Can't know that till we know who the winners are, right?
      
      Thanks for clarifying your original comment. I hadn't clicked through to the article and therefore hadn't read the quote. Just doing my part.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:23pm

Was this case started by a lawyer who doesn't know copyright law?
Again, I have to ask: who are the lawyers taking cases like this? Either:
1) They don't know copyright law, which means they shouldn't be leading a copyright case.
2) They're taking Dunn's money to file a case they know they'll lose, but they need the money.

The courts should start to take action against lawyers like this, if just to stop these frivolous lawsuits. And, yes, it's 100% frivolous to try to keep suing when the case is dead. (And I'm assuming he exhausted all appeals in the US, which is why he's heading to the UK.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jordan Chandler, 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:27pm

England vs. USA
If you're not a resident of the UK, and neither is your plaintiff, and you don't have assets in the UK, etc, what legal position does he think he has? Dan Brown could just not respond and nothing would ever happen. You can't be extradited for such a case.

He likely chose the UK because of their shitty libel laws where the defendant has to prove the allegations are untrue. Perhaps they have something similar for copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:37pm
  
  Re: England vs. USA
  It would seem that his lawyers are employing the same 'logic' that was covered in a somewhat recent article about an East Texas judge, where if one of the parties might have possibly thought about doing business/breathing the air in a location that's good enough to fall under it's jurisdiction.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - orbitalinsertion (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:45pm
    
    Re: Re: England vs. USA
    Until the libel laws were lightly reformed, UK was the venue shopping capital for that, and it didn't seem like you had to have any connection to the UK. (Or maybe just something very, very tenuous.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Agammamon, 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:48pm
  
  Re: England vs. USA
  If something was published in the UK - that's enough of a nexus.
  
  At least it is for libel claims.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whoever, 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:29pm

Better law firm in the UK?
I know of a law firm in the UK with great experience of intellectual property law. I am sure they could help:

ACS:Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:36pm

There's a movie in this somewhere:

"Massachusetts Jack and the Press Release of Impending Litigation"

"Paper Wars: The Umpire Strikes Out"

"Pure Dreck: The Wrath of Dun?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 19 Oct 2017 @ 4:54pm
  
  Re:
  Sorry, no matter what is in the script, it would be claimed as plagiarism (court documents quoted verbatim) leading to copyright claims (my testimony is my creation (which should not work for the courts but might) and therefore copyrightable).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zem, 19 Oct 2017 @ 9:33pm

Threats are cheap, actually going to court isn't. I wonder if it will ever happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 20 Oct 2017 @ 12:12am

Shrug
The way I see it, more than anybody else Dan Brown plagiarizes himself with the "breathless pseudoscientificomythical goose chase covering up a large bout of inconsistencies" plot line. Just what the plot revolves around is of secondary nature.

I have no idea about the veracity of "inspired by plot $x" arguments, but that's not the point of copyright. Or at least it shouldn't be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2017 @ 2:12am
  
  Re: Shrug
  As I see it, both authors used the same sources, and one was a much better storyteller, now the other wants some of the profit to compensate his failure in story telling.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Oct 2017 @ 5:45am

Interesting. Anyone I know who knows of Umberto Eco considers the DaVinci Code to be a "dumbed down" version of Foucalt's Pendulum. Never even heard of Jack Dunn until now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile), 20 Oct 2017 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  You mean like Browns casting a character who is a fictional professor of symbology from Harvard as compared to Umberto Eco's real life roll as a real professor of symbology from the University of Milan? That was not in Faucalt's Pendulum. Or were you referring to something else?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
madasahatter (profile), 20 Oct 2017 @ 5:56am

Infirngement
One thing about copyright infringement I would think needs to be proved is the Brown in this case knew enough about the other work to have used its plot, etc. in his work. Given that both novels are speculative fiction set at the same time it is not too surprising that they have similarities. It is not as if the medieval source material (even if it is fictional itself) was unknown and medieval politics has been studied.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dingledore the Mildly Uncomfortable When Seated, 20 Oct 2017 @ 8:22am

Embarrassing
A copyright claim against Dan Brown. The guy might as well get a t-shirt made up saying "I have the writing skills of a 14 year old conspiracy theorist".

Reminded me of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Middcore, 20 Oct 2017 @ 10:16am

"Not long after publishing the book in 2003 to wide acclaim..."

Let's maybe go with widespread popularity. Acclaim may be a stretch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dyspeptic Curmudgeon, 21 Oct 2017 @ 9:26pm

English law
Firstly it looks like Penguin missed a great opportunity to respond to Dunn's lawyers with: Our response is the same as was provided in Arkell v. Pressdram.
Secondly, copyright law is not libel law.
Thirdly, since Dunn is not a resident of the UK, Brown's lawyers will assuredly move for an order for security for costs. Meaning Dunn will have to post a large chunk of money for a bond, to cover costs if he loses.
And fourthly, in the UK, the legal regime is that the loser paus the winner's legal costs.
So how deep are Dunn's pockets?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2018 @ 10:39am

Anyone here ever heard of presenting evidence to a jury or impartial nudge and questioning both sides in a legitimate trial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]