Fair Use in 2025: The Courts Draw New Lines
By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer
Imagine an AI trained on millions of books – and a federal judge saying that’s fair use. That’s exactly what happened this summer in Bartz v. Anthropic, a case now shaping how creators, publishers, and tech giants fight over the limits of copyright.
Judges in California have sent a strong signal: training large language models (LLMs) on copyrighted works can qualify as fair use if the material is lawfully obtained. In Bartz, Judge William Alsup compared Anthropic’s use of purchased books to an author learning from past works. That kind of transformation, he said, doesn’t substitute for the original.
But Alsup drew a hard line against piracy. If a dataset includes books from unauthorized “shadow libraries,” the fair use defense disappears. Those claims are still heading to trial in December, underscoring that source matters just as much as purpose.
Two days later, Judge Vince Chhabria reached a similar conclusion in Kadrey v. Meta. He called Meta’s training “highly transformative,” but dismissed the lawsuit because the authors failed to show real market harm. Together, the rulings show that transformation is a strong shield, but it isn’t absolute. Market evidence and lawful acquisition remain decisive.
AI training fights aren’t limited to novelists. The New York Times v. OpenAI case is pressing forward after a judge refused to dismiss claims that OpenAI and Microsoft undermined the paper’s market by absorbing its reporting into AI products. And in Hollywood, Disney and Universal are suing Midjourney, alleging its system lets users generate characters like Spider-Man or Shrek – raising the unsettled question of whether AI outputs themselves can infringe.
The lesson is straightforward: fair use is evolving, but not limitless. Courts are leaning toward protecting transformative uses of content—particularly when it’s lawfully sourced – but remain wary of piracy and economic harm.
That means media professionals can’t assume that sharing content online makes it free for training. Courts consistently recognize that free journalism, interviews, and broadcasts still carry market value through advertising, sponsorship, and brand equity. If AI systems cut into those markets, the fair use defense weakens.
For now, creators should watch the December Anthropic trial and the Midjourney litigation closely. The courts have blessed AI’s right to learn – but they haven’t yet decided how far those lessons can travel once the outputs begin to look and feel like the originals.
Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonMediaLaw.com
The risk is real. Suggesting that a technique used with great success in the recent past might be beneficial to the present is a perilous course. Is the idea out of touch with today’s reality? Is the author ignoring current trends?
Ninety seconds. That’s all it took. One of the interviews on the TALKERS Media Channel – shot, edited, and published by us – appeared elsewhere online, chopped into jumpy cuts, overlaid with AI-generated video game clips, and slapped with a clickbait title. The credit? A link. The essence of the interview? Repurposed for someone else’s traffic.
Imagine a listener “talking” to an AI version of you – trained entirely on your old episodes. The bot knows your cadence, your phrases, even your voice. It sounds like you, but it isn’t you.
An annual physical is a wise idea. Doc asks, “How are you doing?”. Then he or she asks some detailed questions based on your medical history. Then “how have you been feeling? Any issues?” Doc always orders blood draws to see what might be lurking. Is the statin drug keeping your cholesterol in check? Are you getting plenty of exercise, plenty of sleep? How’s your diet? Over the years, I’ve visited about my health with at least a dozen different doctors. I’m convinced that the good ones always ask good questions and then listen carefully. Good questioner – good listener. That’s the doc I can respect and put my trust in.
As TV touts its perennial New Fall Season, our DVR is already set to “record series” so we can pick-up where the “Matlock” sequel left-us-hanging; and for a third season of quirky “Elsbeth” (a closet reboot, the female “Columbo”). And where I live – where everyone seems to know everyone – we are salivating for “The Real Housewives of Rhode Island.”
The problem with technocrats is they believe computer programs and machines solve all problems. A technocrat in charge of a business will it kill it, for sure. For example, once a movie theatre is automated, not requiring a pesky projectionist or even a snack counter attendant, you and I would still not buy a ticket – unless the theater was showing an actual MOVIE!
Artificial intelligence now makes it possible to replicate a human voice with striking accuracy. For broadcasters, podcasters, and content creators, the central question is: When does using or imitating a voice become a legal problem? The answer depends on the person being imitated, the purpose of the use, and the rights attached to that voice. Below is a six-bucket framework to help evaluate the risk.
Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964) are some 20% of the U.S. population, but control more than 50% of all household wealth. They hold $70+ trillion in assets and spend an estimated $548 billion annually. They are lifelong AM/FM listeners, and they’re redefining what life after 60 looks like. Are you into what they’re up to?
You did everything right – or so you thought. You used a short clip, added commentary, or reshared something everyone else was already posting. Then one day, a notice shows up in your inbox. A takedown. A demand. A legal-sounding, nasty-toned email claiming copyright infringement, and asking for payment.
South Florida viewers are confused. WPLG, which brands as “Local 10,” was an ABC-TV affiliate for 69 years… until yesterday. Now it’s more local than ever, after divorcing its network, whose programming moved to the FOX affiliate’s digital channels 18.1 and 7.2, now branded “ABC Miami.” Among courteous FAQs about this change on WPLG’s web site: “How do I rescan my TV?” to find ABC programming.
Why we’re already seeing TV tout its coming attractions: They understand how, after Labor Day, routines settle in. Viewers will be ready to re-engage.
Mark Walters
Ask any dog: The humans’ greatest invention EVER? Ice cream. Share summer’s sweetest treat with them, and listeners, during National Ice Cream Month.
In radio and podcasting, editing isn’t just technical – it shapes narratives and influences audiences. Whether trimming dead air, tightening a guest’s comment, or pulling a clip for social media, every cut leaves an impression.
Let’s look into the crystal ball. Humor me if you will.
Let’s discuss how CBS’s $16 million settlement became a warning shot for every talk host, editor, and content creator with a mic.
Music on the weekend provides multiple positive strategic weapons for talk stations. From launch, “New Jersey 101.5” (1,000,000+ cumer); WTKS-FM “Real Radio,” Orlando; WABC, New York; WPHT, Philadelphia; and other major market winners air music all weekend or on dayparted shows.
Are archived shows – whole hours – your station’s only on-demand offering? It’s an easy checkbox: post the aircheck, call it a podcast.
If you saved back issues from when TALKERS was a print tabloid, dig-down about 20 years into the stack. A couple times a year beginning then, I was reporting from conferences then called The Podcast and New Media Expo, which later evolved into NMX and BlogWorld and other incarnations.
The drive to stream video of radio shows has always been risky. Remember your shock when you first saw one of your radio heroes? Video streaming can present a constant disconnect between the show in the listener’s head and the show on the stream. Many stations make the disconnect worse by streaming terrible video images. Combine the trauma of how a host really looks with a dreary TV show and the package cannot benefit the relationship between station and listener/viewer.
right, two shows… one on the radio, one on the stream. Seamless and fun.
With so many of us taking vacation time soon, guest hosts are often local somebodies who are not career broadcasters and don’t share our second-nature performance routines. For their benefit, these tips, based on my experience on both sides of the mic:
At first, I thought it was a joke. When I realized there were serious people having serious meetings about the joke, it became both horrific and symptomatic