Basically, his publisher is being sued because the authors of a 1982 book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail, believe that he plagiarized them.
Did he even read the book? (Obviously, he did). Let's see what AP says, in an article today.
In fact, her absence could yet have a bearing on the outcome of the High Court case, in which two authors of the 1982 nonfiction book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" are suing Brown's British publisher Random House for copyright infringement.
Jonathan Rayner James, the lawyer representing historians Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, has questioned how Brown could be sure of the provenance of research that ended up in his novel, when so much of it was compiled by someone else.
Brown says neither he nor his wife had read the "Holy Blood" book when he came to write the synopsis of his novel.
But in another article, which, disturbingly was published 2 days ago (Also by AP)......
The suit is not against Brown, but his publisher Random House, which also published "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." Random House denies the claims, and Brown says the assertion that he copied is "completely fanciful." "I'm not crazy about the word 'copied,'" Brown testified. "Copying implies it is identical. It's not identical."
Brown said "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was "one of the books in the mix" when he and his wife, Blythe Brown, were researching the novel. He acknowledged "reworking" passages from the earlier book. "That's how you incorporate research into a novel," Brown said.