Perdue had contacted Dan Brown and his publisher Random House in
2003, the year that "The Da Vinci Code" was published. Perdue said
it infringed his novels, “The Da Vinci Legacy” and "Daughter of
God," published in 1983 and 2000 respectively.
In the end, Perdue did not pursue his case over “The Da Vinci
Legacy”, but based his infringement claims largely on “Daughter of
God.”
This novel tells the tale of a fictional Fourth Century female
Messiah and the shroud that wrapped her body – secrets that various
modern day parties, including the Russian mafia and ambitious
Vatican officials, are keen to use to their advantage.
Key to the novel is Perdue’s discussion of the divine feminine,
and the Church’s role in ensuring a male, rather than female
dominated religion. These themes are also present in “The Da Vinci
Code”.
Brown’s novel concerns a secret society, a search for the Holy
Grail and the revelations that Mary Magdalene married Jesus, bore
his child and was his preferred successor. Again the Church is
depicted as trying to keep the facts hidden.
In a pre-emptive strike, Brown and his publishing company filed
an action with the District Court for the Southern District of New
York in September last year, asking the court to declare that “The
Da Vinci Code” did not infringe on Perdue’s copyright.
Perdue counterclaimed for $150 million in damages.
In a ruling issued on Thursday, Judge George Daniels found that
there had been no infringement.
Applying a test of “substantial similarity”, the Judge examined
the plot, characters and themes of both books. There were
similarities, he said, but all of them "are unprotectible ideas,
historical facts and general themes that do not represent any
original elements of Perdue’s work.”
He added: "copyright protection does not extend to thematic
concepts or scenes which must necessarily follow from similar plot
situations."
Judge Daniels concluded: “A reasonable average lay observer
would not conclude that 'The Da Vinci Code' is substantially
similar to 'Daughter of God'. Any slightly similar elements are on
the level of generalised or otherwise unprotectible ideas.”
According to the BBC, Lewis Perdue will appeal.
