Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in Criminal Procedur
I. Introduction
In the realm of entertainment law, copyright is the legal protection granted to original creative works. This protection ensures that the creators (or rightful owners) of works such as music, films, scripts, performances, and artwork have exclusive rights to use and profit from their creations.
When someone uses a copyrighted work without permission, it may constitute copyright infringement, which can result in civil or criminal liability.
II. What Can Be Copyrighted in Entertainment
In the entertainment industry, copyright protection typically covers:
Literary works (scripts, screenplays, lyrics)
Musical works (composition, lyrics, sheet music)
Sound recordings
Dramatic works (stage plays, choreography)
Audiovisual works (films, TV shows, YouTube videos)
Artistic works (set designs, album covers)
Software used in games and production tools
To qualify for protection, the work must be:
Original
Fixed in a tangible medium of expression (e.g., written, recorded, filmed)
III. Exclusive Rights of Copyright Holders
The creator or legal owner has the exclusive right to:
Reproduce the work
Distribute copies
Publicly perform or display the work
Create derivative works
License or assign the work to others
These rights can be licensed (sold or rented) for use in films, advertisements, music recordings, etc.
IV. Copyright Infringement in Entertainment
Copyright infringement occurs when any of the above rights are used without authorization. In the entertainment context, infringement can occur through:
Copying or remixing a song without permission
Unauthorized adaptation of a screenplay or book
Broadcasting or streaming a film without rights
Sampling a sound recording
Using copyrighted background music in YouTube content
Distributing pirated versions of films or albums
V. Key Elements of Copyright Infringement
To prove infringement, the following must typically be established:
Ownership of a valid copyright
Copying of protected elements
Access to the original work by the alleged infringer
Substantial similarity between the original and the infringing work
VI. Defenses Against Copyright Infringement
Common defenses include:
Fair Use (e.g., for parody or criticism)
Independent creation (no access to original work)
Lack of originality
License or permission was obtained
VII. Remedies for Infringement
Injunctions to stop continued infringement
Monetary damages (actual or statutory)
Profits earned from the infringement
Seizure or destruction of infringing copies
VIII. Case Law on Copyright Infringement in Entertainment
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)
Facts: The Nation magazine published excerpts from Gerald Ford’s unpublished memoir without permission.
Issue: Was this "fair use"?
Ruling: The court ruled it was not fair use.
Significance:
Even partial use of copyrighted material without permission is infringement, especially if it affects market value.
In entertainment, pre-released scripts or recordings leaked without consent can be actionable.
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music (1976)
Facts: George Harrison’s song "My Sweet Lord" was claimed to have copied "He’s So Fine" by The Chiffons.
Ruling: The court found unconscious copying.
Significance:
Even subconscious similarities can be infringement.
In music and film, artists must ensure they’re not unintentionally copying others' works.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Paramount Pictures v. Axanar Productions (2017)
Facts: A Star Trek fan film closely resembled the Star Trek universe without permission.
Ruling: The court held that the fan film infringed on copyright, even though it was not-for-profit.
Significance:
Fan works and parodies can still infringe if they mimic substantial elements of protected works.
🧑⚖️ Case 4: Rogers v. Koons (1992)
Facts: Artist Jeff Koons created a sculpture based on a copyrighted photograph without licensing it.
Ruling: Court held this was infringement.
Significance:
Even transformative works can infringe if they borrow too heavily from the original without permission.
Applies to entertainment fields like visual arts, props, or set design.
🧑⚖️ Case 5: Warner Bros. v. RDR Books (2008)
Facts: A fan wrote the "Harry Potter Lexicon", which Warner Bros. claimed infringed on J.K. Rowling’s copyrights.
Ruling: The book was found to infringe because it copied substantial portions of the work.
Significance:
Publishing derivative or companion content without rights can be infringement.
Important in transmedia storytelling and spin-off markets.
IX. Summary Table
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Protection | Original creative works fixed in a tangible form |
| Owner's Rights | Reproduce, distribute, perform, display, create derivatives |
| Infringement | Unauthorized use of any protected rights |
| Key Cases | Harper & Row, Bright Tunes, Axanar Productions |
| Remedies | Injunction, damages, profit recovery |
| Defenses | Fair use, independent creation, licensed use |
X. Conclusion
In the entertainment industry, copyright protection is the foundation of creative control and economic value. Creators, producers, and distributors must respect copyright boundaries or face potentially severe legal consequences. Through litigation and licensing, entertainment law ensures that intellectual property is treated as a protected asset—not just an idea, but a right with enforceable value.
Would you like a visual chart of the case summaries or a template for a copyright assignment agreement used in entertainment projects?
You said:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree in Criminal Procedur explain in detail with case law and without any extrernal law
ChatGPT said:
Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine in Criminal Procedure
(Detailed Explanation with Case Law, No External Laws)
I. Introduction
The "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" is a legal doctrine in criminal procedure that prohibits the use of evidence obtained indirectly through illegal or unconstitutional actions by law enforcement. If the original source ("the tree") of the evidence is tainted ("poisonous"), then anything gained from it ("the fruit") is generally inadmissible in court.
II. What Does It Mean?
"Poisonous Tree": The original illegal act by the police or authorities, such as an unlawful search, seizure, or interrogation that violates constitutional rights.
"Fruit": Evidence or information derived from that initial illegality.
If evidence is gathered as a result of an unlawful search or interrogation, then not only is the original evidence inadmissible, but also any additional evidence that flows from it.
III. Purpose of the Doctrine
To deter police misconduct by discouraging unlawful investigative methods.
To preserve judicial integrity by preventing courts from endorsing illegal actions.
To protect individual constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures or coerced confessions.
IV. Application of the Doctrine
If the initial evidence is found to be illegally obtained, then:
All evidence derived from that illegal evidence is excluded.
However, there are exceptions where the derived evidence may still be admitted.
V. Exceptions to the Doctrine
Independent Source Doctrine
Evidence obtained independently of the illegal action is admissible.
Inevitable Discovery Doctrine
Evidence that would have been discovered lawfully anyway is admissible.
Attenuation Doctrine
The connection between the illegal action and the evidence is sufficiently remote or interrupted by intervening circumstances.
VI. Important Case Law Illustrations
🧑⚖️ Case 1: Wong Sun v. United States
Facts: Police illegally arrested Wong Sun and obtained statements and evidence from him.
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Wong Sun’s statements were "fruits of the poisonous tree" and inadmissible, but later statements made after Wong Sun had been released and returned voluntarily were admissible.
Significance: Established that evidence obtained by exploitation of prior illegality must be excluded unless there is a break in the chain of causation (attenuation).
🧑⚖️ Case 2: Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
Facts: Government agents illegally seized documents and then tried to use copies of those documents as evidence.
Ruling: The Court ruled that copies of illegally seized evidence are also inadmissible as they are "fruit" of the initial illegal act.
Significance: Strengthened the idea that derivative evidence from an illegal search or seizure is excluded.
🧑⚖️ Case 3: Nardone v. United States
Facts: Illegal wiretaps were used to gather evidence.
Ruling: The Court applied the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine to exclude all evidence obtained directly or indirectly from the illegal wiretaps.
Significance: Extended the doctrine to electronic surveillance and other investigative techniques.
VII. Why is this Doctrine Important in Criminal Procedure?
It safeguards constitutional protections such as the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Prevents law enforcement from benefiting from unlawful conduct.
Ensures that trials are fair and based on legally obtained evidence.
VIII. Summary Table
| Aspect | Description |
|---|---|
| Poisonous Tree | Initial illegal government conduct |
| Fruit | Evidence derived from the illegal conduct |
| Main Rule | Both tree and fruit are inadmissible |
| Exceptions | Independent source, inevitable discovery, attenuation |
| Purpose | Deterrence, judicial integrity, rights protection |
| Key Cases | Wong Sun, Silverthorne Lumber, Nardone |
IX. Conclusion
The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine is a powerful tool in criminal procedure that excludes not just illegally obtained evidence but also any evidence derived from it, reinforcing the rule of law and protecting constitutional rights. However, the doctrine is balanced by exceptions to avoid unnecessarily hampering law enforcement when evidence can be obtained lawfully.
RELATED Blog
0 comments