When Satire Stands Its Ground
By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer
When we first covered this case, it felt like only 2024 could invent it – a disgraced congressman, George Santos, selling Cameos and a late-night host, Jimmy Kimmel, buying them under fake names to make a point about truth and ego. A year later, the Second Circuit turned that punchline into precedent. (Read story here: https://talkers.com/2024/12/19/jimmy-kimmels-fair-use-victory-what-it-means-for-content-creators/)
And just to clear the record: this has nothing to do with Jimmy Kimmel’s unrelated dust-up with FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr. Different story, different planet. This one’s about copyright and commentary – and it’s a clear win for both.
The Set-Up
After his expulsion from Congress, George Santos began offering paid video shout-outs on Cameo. Kimmel’s writers sent absurd requests under pseudonyms for a segment called “Will Santos Say It?” – and he did. The show aired those clips to highlight how easily a public figure would say anything for a fee.
(If you want a taste, look up “Jimmy Kimmel Pranks George Santos on Cameo” on YouTube. That’s the kind of transformative satire the court later called “sarcastic criticism and commentary.”)
Santos sued Kimmel, ABC, and Disney for copyright infringement, fraud, and breach of contract, claiming the videos were sold for “personal use.” The district court tossed it; Santos appealed.
The Ruling
On September 15, 2025, the Second Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal. The panel said Kimmel’s use was transformative: he turned Santos’s self-promotion into political satire. Even Santos’s complaint described the bit as sarcastic commentary.
Claims of “market harm” fell flat. Airing a few clips on network TV doesn’t compete with Cameo. Embarrassment isn’t economic loss.
And the supposed bad faith – using fake names to order the clips – didn’t undo fair use. The court stuck to the statutory factors: purpose, nature, amount, and effect. Mischief isn’t a fifth one.
The rest of the claims – fraud, contract, enrichment – stayed dismissed as pre-empted or too thin to matter.
Why It Matters
This decision lands as courts wrestle with whether AI’s use of copyrighted works can ever be “transformative.” Santos v. Kimmel shows what that word really means: a human taking existing material and using it to say something new.
Fair use protects meaning, not mimicry. That’s why satire, commentary, and criticism still stand when they have a point.
For media creators, the lesson is simple: transformation beats permission. If you use third-party material, make sure you’re adding perspective – not just recycling content. That, more than any fine print, is what keeps you on the right side of the line.
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 or read more at TALKERS.com.
and more in alleging that he had a deal with Del Nin in 2022 and began working together “to try to acquiring Cox Radio, with Del Nin agreeing that Warshaw would manage the business as CEO upon successful acquisition.” Warshaw also says he steered SFM and Del Nin to the deal that made SFM a majority stake holder of the new Audacy in early 2024 and alleges he was promised he’d be the next CEO of Audacy or that he would get 5% of SFM’s profits from the Audacy acquisition. As for the change of venue, both parties agree the case involves both complex legal issues and a claim for monetary damages. The defendants says it’s likely to require resolution of “complicated legal and factual issues.” (Del Nin has already moved to dismiss on jurisdiction grounds, which involves questions of constitutional law.) Plus, SFM anticipates the case will benefit from careful discovery oversight as it will need discovery from Warshaw as well as potentially from third parties, including from Connoisseur and the other investment firms Warshaw references in the Complaint.
business as CEO upon successful acquisition.” While both parties were doing due diligence on the CMG deal, Warshaw learned that an Audacy majority stake holder was willing to sell its stake in the company. Warshaw says he steered SFM and Del Nin to the deal that made SFM a majority stake holder of the new Audacy in early 2024. Warshaw alleges he was promised he’d be the next CEO of Audacy or that he would get 5% of SFM’s profits from the Audacy acquisition. After that though, Warshaw says Del Nin balked and denied there was ever an agreement, calling any such claims “fabricated.” Now, Soros and Del Nin filed both a Motion to Dismiss saying the “Court lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr. Del Nin under Connecticut’s long-arm statute”; and a Motion to Revise that asks Warshaw to revise his complaint with specific details about his contracts – written or verbal – that he claims were breached, and more. In the Motion to Revise, Soros and Del Nin imply that Warshaw doesn’t have the contractual proof necessary to support his claim. 
Cox Radio, with Del Nin agreeing that Warshaw would manage the business as CEO upon successful acquisition.” While both parties were doing due diligence on the CMG deal, Warshaw learned that an Audacy majority stake holder was willing to sell its stake in the company. Warshaw says he steered SFM and Del Nin to the deal that made SFM a majority stake holder of the new Audacy in early 2024. Warshaw alleges he was promised he’d be the next CEO of Audacy or that he would get 5% of SFM’s profits from the Audacy acquisition. After that though, Warshaw says Del Nin balked and denied there was ever an agreement, calling any such claims “fabricated.” Warshaw is seeking compensatory and punitive damages and asking that the court award specific performance of their agreement.
come to terms on a renewal to remain with “The Ticket.” The sticking point was their desire to explore digital initiatives outside of their work with Cumulus. They have since launched a podcast via Patreon that Cumulus says violates their six-month non-compete. The company also alleges the two have violated the non-solicitation and non-disparagement clauses of their contract. It alleges the duo have “commandeered” company-owned social media accounts, threatened to release “conversations Defendants illicitly recorded” with company executives. Cumulus is seeking “emergency injunctive relief” plus attorneys’ fees and costs.