Tag: Harrison Legal Group

Industry Views

The Advertiser Gave Us an AI Commercial… Isn’t that Enough?

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

doublewiredaiproblem

imgBy Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

Synthetic audio can turn one clearance problem into two
An advertiser sends a finished commercial to a station. The script came from one AI platform, the announcer’s voice from another, and the music arrived inside the final audio file. The production value is surprisingly good for a dental office. Then someone notices that the announcer sounds remarkably like Matthew McConaughey. He does not say “alright, alright, alright,” exactly, but he says something close enough to make the association obvious.

A conventional infringing commercial may misuse a song, recording, photograph, or written copy. An AI commercial can create the same copyright problem while adding another: the unauthorized commercial use of a recognizable person’s identity. One file can therefore produce two entirely different claims.

Copyright protects original expression, including scripts, music, and sound recordings. It generally does not give anyone a copyright in the sound of a natural voice. That does not make a distinctive voice free for advertisers to imitate.

Tom Waits established the distinction decades before generative AI. After Waits declined to participate in a Frito-Lay campaign, the company used a singer who imitated him in a radio commercial. Waits successfully pursued claims for voice misappropriation and false endorsement. AI now makes that imitation faster, cheaper, and potentially more convincing. Waits v. Frito-Lay⁠

The rights do not travel together 

Clearing the script or music does not clear the voice. Permission from the person whose voice was cloned does not clear protected material that the system may have reproduced. The station needs to ask two questions: Who owns everything in this commercial, and whose identity is doing the selling?

There is another wrinkle. The AI company may possess defenses that do not travel with the finished audio. In Walters v. OpenAI, ChatGPT falsely accused radio host Mark Walters of embezzlement. OpenAI defeated the defamation claim because the recipient encountered warnings that the system could be inaccurate, did not believe the accusation, verified that it was false, and did not republish it. Walters also failed to prove the necessary fault or damages. Walters v. OpenAI⁠ case summary⁠

That ruling did not grant AI companies blanket immunity. It does suggest an uncomfortable result for broadcasters. A provider’s warning that its output requires verification may help protect the provider while making it harder for a station to argue that airing the output without checking was reasonable. The company that generated the problem may have a better defense than the broadcaster that delivered it to the public.

California’s AI Transparency Act, operative August 2, 2026, now requires certain large AI providers to offer detection tools and place provenance disclosures in generated audio, images, and video. Those tools may help identify origin. They do not establish copyright clearance, consent, accuracy, or authority to imitate someone. California AI Transparency Act⁠

Stations should require advertisers to warrant both ownership and permission for identifiable voices or likenesses, backed by indemnification. AI has not replaced the old clearance problem. It can place a second problem beside it, then leave the broadcaster holding both.

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.

Industry News TALKERS 2026

TALKERS 2026 Video: Panel Discussion – “Journalism, Ethics, the Law, and Credibility in an Era of Fakes”

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

img

TALKERS continues to post videos of sessions recorded at the TALKERS 2026: Radio’s Next Chapter conference recently held at Hofstra University (6/5). More than 65 speakers participated in the day’s events. Today’s entry is a panel discussion titled, “Journalism, Ethics, the Law, and Credibility in an Era of Fakes.” The moderator is WPHT, Philadelphia midday host Dom Giordano, often referred to as the Dean of Philadelphia talk radio and respected as one of the field’s leading experts on and advocates for education. Panelists include (in alphabetical order): Lisa Wexler, host, WICC, Bridgeport; Sid Rosenberg, host, WABC, New York; Lee Harris, SVP news and programming, WABC, New York / Worldwide News Network; Joe Salzone, news director, Cayuga Media group / host WHCU, Ithaca; and Matthew B. Harrison, associate publisher, TALKERS / senior partner, Harrison Legal Group. Stay tuned to TALKERS for daily postings of sessions from the 28th installment of the longest running and most important annual talk media industry gathering. To view this dynamic discussion in its entirety, please click here.

Industry Views

When Your Voice Becomes the Product

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

img

By Matthew B. Harrison  
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

imgFor years, Harrison Legal Group has informed media creators about the legal risks of using copyrighted clips, songs, images, and broadcasts without permission. The issue became central enough to inspire my book, Playing the Clip: The Definitive Digital Media Creator’s Guide to Fair Use (TALKERS Books, 2026). The premise was straightforward: modern media runs on borrowed material, but borrowing comes with legal exposure.

Now the fight is shifting toward something more personal.

The voice itself.

Not the recording. Not necessarily the script. The identity embedded in the sound.

That distinction is becoming increasingly important as AI voice systems improve to the point where listeners can recognize a performer even when the company insists it used a “different actor” or synthetic generation. The Scarlett Johansson dispute with OpenAI may become the defining example. Johansson alleged that OpenAI created a voice assistant that sounded “eerily similar” to her after she declined the company’s request to license her actual voice. OpenAI denied intentionally imitating her and stated the voice belonged to another actress but still paused what they branded the “Sky” voice after backlash intensified.

The case matters because it exposes a legal gray area many creators misunderstand.

A voice is generally not protected by copyright law in the same way a song recording is. But a recognizable voice may still trigger claims involving the right of publicity, false endorsement, unfair competition, or misappropriation of identity. In other words, the legal risk is often not “you copied audio.” The risk is “you exploited identity.”

That distinction matters for broadcasters, podcasters, advertisers, and AI companies experimenting with synthetic hosts, cloned announcers, or celebrity-style narration.

If listeners reasonably believe a celebrity endorsed, participated in, or authorized the content, the legal exposure changes dramatically.

Read more….

Another recent example involves Dua Lipa and Samsung. According to reports, Lipa alleges Samsung used her image on television packaging without authorization, creating the impression she endorsed the product. Samsung reportedly claims the image came from a third-party provider that assured the company all rights were cleared.

That defense may sound familiar to media professionals.

“We got it from somebody else.”

Legally, that is often not enough.

A broadcaster cannot avoid defamation liability merely because a guest made the statement. A publisher cannot automatically avoid infringement exposure because a freelancer supplied the material. And a company may not avoid publicity-rights claims simply because a vendor promised the paperwork existed.

The underlying legal theme is the same: delegation is not immunity.

The AI layer complicates things further because modern systems do not necessarily reproduce exact copies. Instead, they generate approximations that may still evoke a specific person strongly enough to create marketplace confusion.

Courts have dealt with similar issues before. Bette Midler and Tom Waits both successfully sued over soundalike performances used in advertising after declining to participate themselves. The principle is not new. AI simply makes imitation faster, cheaper, and easier to distribute.

That should concern media creators who assume these disputes only affect billion-dollar tech companies.

They do not.

A local station, podcast producer, YouTube creator, or advertiser can now generate celebrity-adjacent voices in seconds. The barrier to entry collapsed. The liability did not.

The safest question is no longer merely “Do we own the audio?”

It is: “Whose identity does this remind people of?”

That answer may determine whether the next lawsuit is really about technology at all.

Or simply old-fashioned commercial exploitation wearing futuristic clothing.

Get your copy of “Play the Clip: The Definitive Digital Media Creator’s Guide to Fair Use” by filling out the request form at HarrisonMediaLaw.com.

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@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.