2 authors appeal in 'Da Vinci Code' case

Two authors who failed to convince Britain's High Court that Dan Brown stole their ideas for his blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code" took their case to the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

Lawyers for Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who face a bill of more than $2 million if the earlier verdict stands, said the lower court ruling "was based on a misunderstanding of the law and of the claim."

Baigent and Leigh contend that Brown stole significant parts of his novel from their book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail." Both books are based on a theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child, and that the bloodline continues to this day.

Brown testified for several days during the High Court hearing last year but he was not in court on Tuesday.

The claimants' lawyer, Johnathan Rayner James, said that though the suit had been against the publisher rather than Brown, "in reality, Mr. Brown was effectively on trial over his authorship of 'The Da Vinci Code.'"

In April, Justice Peter Smith ruled that Random House, publisher of "The Da Vinci Code," had not breached the copyright. Smith said Baigent and Leigh's claim had been based on a "selective number of facts and ideas artificially taken out of (the book) for the purpose of the litigation."

Baigent and Leigh were ordered to pay 85 percent of Random House's legal bill, estimated at $2.6 million.

Lawyers for the two authors are asking three appeal court judges to overturn Smith's verdict.

"The Da Vinci Code" has sold more than 40 million copies since its release in March 2003. A film version starring Tom Hanks was released last year.

"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" _ also published by Random House _ was a best-seller on its release more than 20 years ago, and climbed sales charts again thanks to publicity surrounding the case.