London Judge Adjourns Court to RE-read the Books in Question
"You cannot, he said, claim copyright over a few bars of a song; it's the whole tune or nothing."
The second contention is an obvious mistake, at least in America, as any competent copyright attorney here knows.
The first part shows a judicial willingess to consider all the facts. RE-reading after having heard testimony in order to see for himself. This judge seems to understand that determining plagiarism is not always as simple a task as breezing through the works in question.
Da Vinci judge turns back to page one
By Alan Hamilton
The devil is in the detail, and one reading of the two hefty books in question proves insufficient
DID Pepin the Fat assassinate King Dagobert II in AD679? Why did the Knights Templar fall out with the Priory of Sion in 1188? And was the Crucifixion a fake?
Early Christian history dominated the second day yesterday of the hearing in the High Court into whether the American author Dan Brown had infringed copyright by lifting ideas from a book published more than 20 years previously for his blockbusting fiction, The Da Vinci Code, written in 2003.
Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh are suing their publishers, Random House, for breach of copyright, saying that Brown took at least 15 core ideas from their non-fiction work, The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail, written in 1982. It was the turn of the defence yesterday to deny the claims and, as ever, the devil was in the detail.
Read the rest.