Harrison Media Law – TALKERS magazine

Reckless Disregard in the Age of AI: What Verification Now Requires

By TALKERS | March 3, 2026 by TALKERS

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

AI is now embedded in the modern newsroom. Not as a headline, not as a novelty, but as infrastructure. It drafts outlines, summarizes complex reporting, surfaces background details, and accelerates prep for live conversations. For media creators operating under relentless deadlines, that efficiency is not theoretical. It is practical and daily.

That reality raises a quiet but consequential legal question. When AI contributes to your research, what does verification now require?

Professional hosts are not reading raw chatbot answers on air and calling it journalism. That caricature misses the real issue. What is actually happening is subtler and far more common.

AI now sits inside research workflows. Producers use it for background. Hosts use it to summarize reporting. Teams use it to outline controversies or draft rundowns. Most of the time, it works. Sometimes, however, it invents.

When that invention involves a real person and a serious allegation, the legal analysis looks familiar.

For public figures, defamation requires proof of actual malice – knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for truth. For private figures, negligence is usually enough. In both cases, the focus is not on the tool. It is on the content creator’s conduct.

AI does not change the elements. It changes the context in which reasonableness is judged.

Courts have long held that repeating a defamatory statement can create liability, even if someone else said it first. If you rely on a blog, and that blog relied on AI, and the allegation is false, the question becomes whether your reliance was reasonable.

Was the source reputable? Was the claim inherently improbable? Were there obvious red flags? Was contradictory information readily available?

AI’s reputation for “hallucinating” facts now forms part of that backdrop. Widespread awareness that these systems can fabricate citations, merge identities, or invent accusations becomes relevant when a court evaluates your verification choices.

This does not mean using AI indicates reckless disregard. It means using AI does not excuse skipping verification when the stakes are high.

The more specific and damaging the claim, the greater the duty to confirm it through independent, reliable sources. Not another prompt. Not a circular reference to the same unverified blog. Rather, a primary record, official statement, or established reporting.

Documentation matters. If challenged, being able to show that you checked multiple sources before broadcast can be decisive.

None of this is new doctrine. What is new is how seamlessly AI blends into ordinary research habits. That integration makes it easier to forget that the legal question is still about human judgment.

The law will not ask whether your workflow was efficient. It will ask whether your conduct was reasonable under the circumstances.

In the age of AI, verification is not a courtesy. It is risk management.

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 Views

You Are the Asset: Why Protecting Your Voice and Likeness Is No Longer Optional

By TALKERS | January 26, 2026January 26, 2026 by TALKERS

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

For years, “protect your name and likeness” sounded like lawyer advice in search of a problem. Abstract. Defensive. Easy to ignore. That worked when misuse required effort, intent, and a human decision-maker willing to cross a line.

AI changed that.

When Matthew McConaughey began trademarking his name and persona-linked phrases (“alright, alright, alright”), it was not celebrity vanity. It was an acknowledgment that identity has become a transferable commodity, whether the person attached to it consents or not.

A voice is no longer just expressive. It is functional. It can be sampled, trained, replicated, and redeployed at scale. Not as a parody. Not as commentary. As a substitute. When a synthetic version of you can narrate ads, read copy, or deliver endorsements you never approved, the injury is not hypothetical. It is economic.

We have already seen this play out. In the past two years, synthetic versions of well-known voices have been used to sell products the real person never endorsed, often through social media ad networks. These were not deep-fake jokes or parody videos. They were commercial voice reads. The pitch was simple: if it sounds credible, it converts. By the time the real speaker objected, the ad had already run, the money had moved, and responsibility had dissolved into a stack of platform disclaimers.

This is where many creators misunderstand trademark law. They think it is about logos and merchandise. It is not. Trademarks protect source identification. Meaning, if the public associates a name, phrase, or expression with you as the origin, that association has legal weight. McConaughey’s filings reflect that reality. Certain phrases signal him instantly. That signaling function has value, and trademark law is designed to prevent identity capture before confusion spreads.

Right of publicity laws still matter. They protect against unauthorized commercial use of name, image, and often voice. But they are largely reactive. Trademarks allow creators to draw boundaries in advance, before identity becomes unmoored from its source.

This is not a celebrity problem. Local radio hosts, podcasters, commentators, and long-form interviewers trade on recognition and trust every day. AI does not care about fame tiers. It cares about recognizable signals.

You do not need to trademark everything. You do need to know what actually signifies you, and decide whether to protect it, because in an AI-driven media economy, failing to define your identity does not preserve flexibility. It invites identity capture.

Industry Views

A 20th Century Rulebook Officiating a 2026 Game

By TALKERS | January 7, 2026January 7, 2026 by TALKERS

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

Every media creator knows this moment. You are building a segment, you find the clip that makes the point land, and then the hesitation kicks in. Can I use this? Or am I about to invite a problem that distracts from the work itself?

That question has always lived at the center of fair use. What has changed is not the question, but the context around it. Over the past year, two federal court decisions involving AI training have quietly clarified how judges are thinking about copying, transformation, and risk in a media environment that looks nothing like the one for which these rules were originally written.

Fair use was never meant to be static. Anyone treating it as a checklist with guaranteed outcomes is working from an outdated playbook. What we actually have is a 20th century rulebook being used to officiate a game that keeps inventing new positions mid-play. The rules still apply. But how they are interpreted depends heavily on what the technology is doing and why.

That tension showed up clearly in two cases out of the Northern District of California last summer. In both, the courts addressed whether training AI systems on copyrighted books could qualify as fair use. These were not headline-grabbing decisions, but they mattered. The judges declined to declare AI training inherently illegal. At the same time, they refused to give it a free pass.

What drove the analysis was context. What material was used. How it was ingested. What the system produced afterward. And, critically, whether the output functioned as a replacement for the original works or something meaningfully different. Reading the opinions, you get the sense that the courts are no longer talking about “AI” as a single concept. Each model is treated almost as its own actor, with its own risk profile.

A simple medical analogy helps. Two patients can take the same medication and have very different outcomes. Dosage matters. Chemistry matters. Timing matters. Courts are beginning to approach AI the same way. The same training data does not guarantee the same behavior, and fair use analysis has to account for that reality.

So why should this matter to someone deciding whether to play a 22-second news clip?

Because the courts relied on the same four factors that govern traditional media use. Purpose. Nature. Amount. Market effect. They did not invent a new test for AI. They applied the existing one with a sharper focus on transformation and substitution. That tells us something important. The framework has not changed. The scrutiny has.

Once you see that, everyday editorial decisions become easier to evaluate. Commentary versus duplication. Reporting versus repackaging. Illustration versus substitution. These are not abstract legal concepts. They are practical distinctions creators make every day, often instinctively. The courts are signaling that those instincts still matter, but they need to be exercised with awareness, not habit.

The mistake I see most often is treating fair use as permission rather than analysis. Fair use is not a shield you invoke after the fact. It is a lens you apply before you hit publish. The recent AI cases reinforce that point. Judges are not interested in labels. They are interested in function and effect.

Fair use has always evolved alongside technology. Printing presses, photocopiers, home recording, digital editing, streaming. AI is just the newest stress test. The takeaway is not panic, and it is not complacency. It is attention.

If you work in the media today, the smart move is to understand how the rulebook is being interpreted while you are busy playing the game. The rules still count. The field just looks different now.

Industry Views

Navigating the Deepfake Dilemma in the Age of AI Impersonation

By TALKERS | December 10, 2025 by TALKERS

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

The Problem Is No Longer Spotting a Joke. The Problem Is Spotting Reality

Every seasoned broadcaster or media creator has a radar for nonsense. You have spent years vetting sources, confirming facts, and throwing out anything that feels unreliable. The complication now is that artificial intelligence can wrap unreliable content in a polished package that looks and sounds legitimate.

This article is not aimed at people creating AI impersonation channels. If that is your hobby, nothing here will make you feel more confident about it. This is for the professionals whose job is to keep the information stream as clean as possible. You are not making deepfakes. You are trying to avoid stepping in them and trying even harder not to amplify them.

Once something looks real and sounds real, a significant segment of your audience will assume it is real. That changes the amount of scrutiny you need to apply. The burden now falls on people like you to pause before reacting.

Two Clips That Tell the Whole Story

Consider two current examples. The first is the synthetic Biden speech that appears all over social media. It presents a younger, steadier president delivering remarks that many supporters wish he would make. It is polished, convincing, and created entirely by artificial intelligence.

The second is the cartoonish Trump fighter jet video that shows him dropping waste on unsuspecting civilians. No one believes it is real. Yet both types of content live in the same online ecosystem and both get shared widely.

The underlying facts do not matter once the clip begins circulating. If you repeat it on the air without checking it, you become the next link in the distribution chain. Not every untrue clip is misinformation. People get things wrong without intending to deceive, and the law recognizes that. What changes here is the plausibility. When an artificial performance can fool a reasonable viewer, the difference between a mistake and a misleading impression becomes something a finder of fact sorts out later. Your audience cannot make that distinction in real time.

Parody and Satire Still Exist, but AI Is Blurring the Edges

Parody imitates a person to comment on that person. Satire uses the imitation to comment on something else. These categories worked because traditional impersonations were obvious. A cartoon voice or exaggerated caricature did not fool anyone.

A convincing AI impersonation removes the cues that signal it is a joke. It sounds like the celebrity. It looks like the celebrity. It uses words that fit the celebrity’s public image. It stops functioning as commentary and becomes a manufactured performance that appears authentic. That is when broadcasters get pulled into the confusion even though they had nothing to do with the creation.

When the Fake Version Starts Crowding Out the Real One

Public figures choose when and where to speak. A Robert De Niro interview has weight because he rarely gives them. A carefully planned appearance on a respected platform signals importance.

When dozens of artificial De Niros begin posting daily commentary, the significance of the real appearance is reduced. The market becomes crowded. Authenticity becomes harder to protect. This is not only a reputational issue. It is an economic one rooted in scarcity and control.

You may think you are sharing a harmless clip. In reality, you might be participating in the dilution of someone’s legitimate business asset.

Disclaimers Are Not Shields

Many deepfake channels use disclaimers. They say things like this is parody or this is not the real person. A parking garage can also post a sign that it is not responsible for damage to your car. That does not absolve them when something collapses on your vehicle.

A disclaimer that no one negotiates or meaningfully acknowledges does not protect the creator or the people who share the clip. If viewers believe it is real, the disclaimer (often hidden in plain sight) is irrelevant.

The Liability No One Expects: Damage You Did Not Create

You can become responsible for the fallout without ever touching the original video. If you talk about a deepfake on the air, share it on social media, or frame it as something that might be true, you help it spread. Your audience trusts you. If you repeat something inaccurate, even unintentionally, they begin questioning your judgment. One believable deepfake can undermine years of credibility.

Platforms Profit From the Confusion

Here is the structural issue that rarely gets discussed. Platforms have every financial incentive to push deepfakes. They generate engagement. Engagement generates revenue. Revenue satisfies stockholders. This stands in tension with the spirit of Section 230, which was designed to protect neutral platforms, not platforms that amplify synthetic speech they know is likely to deceive.

If a platform has the ability to detect and label deepfakes and chooses not to, the responsibility shifts to you. The platform benefits. You absorb the risk.

What Media Professionals Should Do

You do not need new laws. You do not need to give warnings to your audience. You do not need to panic. You do need to stay sharp.

Here is the quick test. Ask yourself four questions.

Is the source authenticated?
Has the real person ever said anything similar?
Is the platform known for synthetic or poorly moderated content?
Does anything feel slightly off even when the clip looks perfect?

If any answer gives you pause, treat the clip as suspect. Treat it as content, not truth.

Final Thought (at Least for Now)

Artificial intelligence will only become more convincing. Your role is not to serve as a gatekeeper. Your role is to maintain professional judgment. When a clip sits between obviously fake and plausibly real, that is the moment to verify and, when necessary, seek guidance. There is little doubt that the inevitable proliferation of phony internet “shows” is about to bloom into a controversial legal, ethical, and financial industry issue.

Industry Views

Why “Play the Clip” Still Matters

By TALKERS | October 17, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Every talk host knows the move: play the clip. It might be a moment from late-night TV, a political ad, or a viral post that sets the table for the segment. It’s how commentary comes alive – listeners hear it, react to it, and stay tuned for your take.

That simple act is powered by a fragile piece of legal machinery known as the Fair Use Balancing Act. Without it, half of talk radio, podcasting, and online news/talk commentary wouldn’t exist. Fair Use allows creators to quote, parody, or critique copyrighted material without permission – but only when the new use transforms the old. It’s the backbone of what we now call “react” or “remix” culture.

Fair use isn’t a license; it’s a defense. When you rely on it, you admit you used someone else’s work and trust that a judge will see your purpose – criticism, news, education – as transformative. That’s a high-wire act few think about when the mic is hot.

The doctrine works on a sliding scale: courts weigh four factors – purpose, nature, amount, and market effect. In plain English, they ask, Did you change the meaning? Did you take too much? Did you cost the owner money? There are neither checklists nor guarantees.

That flexibility is what makes American media vibrant – and also what keeps lawyers busy. Each decision takes time, context, and money. The price of creative freedom is uncertainty.

The same logic now drives the debate over AI training and voice cloning. Machines don’t “comment” on your broadcast; they absorb it. And if courts treat that as transformative analysis instead of reproduction, the next generation of “hosts” may not need microphones at all.

For broadcasters, that’s the new frontier: your archives, tone, and phrasing are training data. Once ingested, they can be repurposed, remixed, and re-voiced without violating traditional copyright rules. The Fair Use Balancing Act may protect innovation – but it rarely protects the innovator.

Fair use was designed to keep culture evolving, not to leave creators behind. It balances a creator’s right to profit against society’s right to build upon shared work. But balance only works if both sides know the weight they’re carrying.

Every time you play the clip, remember you’re exercising one of the oldest and most essential freedoms in media. Just make sure the next voice that plays you is doing the same thing – for the right reasons, and under the same rules.

Industry Views

When Satire Stands Its Ground

By TALKERS | October 10, 2025 by TALKERS

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.

Industry Views Sarugami

When AI Fools the Host: Mistake, Missed Opportunity, or Legal Minefield?

By TALKERS | September 17, 2025September 17, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Charlie Kirk’s tragic assassination shook the talk radio world. Emotions were raw, and broadcasters across the spectrum tried to capture that moment for their audiences. Charles Heller of KVOI in Tucson shared in these pages yesterday (9/16) how he, in that haze of grief, played what he thought were tribute songs by Ed Sheeran and Adele. Only later did he realize they were AI-generated.

Heller deserves credit for admitting his mistake. Many would have quietly moved on, but he turned the incident into a public reflection on accuracy and the challenges of this new AI age. That honesty does not weaken him – it underscores his credibility. Audiences trust the host who owns a mistake more than the one who hides it. In this business, candor is currency.

Still, the programmer in me sees an on-air opportunity. Imagine a segment called “AI or Authentic?” – play generated songs alongside real ones and invite the audience to decide. It could be informative and fun: interactive, funny, and a perfect spotlight on the very problem that fooled him. I’m sure there are folks out there who have already done this.

Here’s where the lawyer in me speaks up. Falling for a convincing fake is a mistake, not malice. For public figures like Adele or Sheeran, defamation requires proof that a host knew something was false or acted recklessly. A one-off error doesn’t reach that bar.

But liability doesn’t end there. Misattribution can raise right-of-publicity concerns. Saying Adele recorded a song she didn’t isn’t defamatory – but it can still be an unauthorized use of her persona. Intent doesn’t always matter. The safer route is clear labeling: “This may be AI.”

For those of us behind the glass, the lesson is simple: mistakes happen. But doubling down without context? That’s how little errors become legal problems. The law is forgiving of a slip in judgment. It is less forgiving if the same content is repackaged as fact without transparency.

Heller’s story isn’t embarrassing – it’s instructive. In the AI era, every broadcaster faces the same challenge: how to verify what feels authentic. The answer isn’t to shy away from the technology. It’s to make sure you control the punchline – not the algorithm.

Industry Views

Fair Use in 2025: The Courts Draw New Lines

By TALKERS | August 29, 2025 by TALKERS

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.

Industry Views

When “Sharing” Becomes Stealing: TALKERS’ 90-Second Lesson in Fair Use

By TALKERS | August 26, 2025 by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison

TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

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.

TALKERS owns the copyright. Taking 90 seconds of continuous audio and re-editing it is infringement.

Could they argue fair use? Maybe, but the factors cut against them:

Purpose: Clickbait, not commentary or parody.
Nature: Original journalism leans protective.
Amount: Ninety seconds may be the “heart” of the work.
Market Effect: If reposts draw views, ad revenue, or SEO, that’s harm.

And here’s the key point: posting free content doesn’t erase its market value. Free journalism still generates reputation, sponsorships, and ad dollars. Courts consistently reject the idea that “free” means “up for grabs.”

Enforcement options exist. A DMCA notice can clear a repost quickly. Repeat offenders risk bans. On-screen branding makes copying obvious, and licenses can set terms like “share with credit, no remix.”

But here’s the hard truth: a takedown won’t stop the AI problem. Once a clip circulates, it’s scraped into datasets training text-to-video and voice models. Deleting the repost doesn’t erase cached or mirrored copies. Think of it like pouring a glass of water into the ocean – you can’t get it back. And to make matters worse, enforcement doesn’t stop at U.S. borders. Different countries have different copyright rules, making “justice” slow, uneven, and rarely satisfying.

That TALKERS interview may now live inside billions of fragments teaching machines how people speak. You can win the takedown battle and still lose the training war. Courts are only starting to address whether scraping is infringement. For now, once it’s ingested, it’s permanent.

Creators face a constant tension: content must spread to grow, but unchecked sharing erodes control. The challenge in 2025 is drawing that line before your work becomes someone else’s “content.”

The law is still on your side – but vigilance matters. Use takedowns when necessary. Brand so the source is clear. Define sharing terms up front. And remember: free doesn’t mean worthless.

The real question isn’t just “Is it fair use?” It’s “Who controls the story?”

Industry Views

Could Your Own Podcast Become Your AI Competitor?

By TALKERS | August 21, 2025 by TALKERS

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

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.

This isn’t science fiction. With enough content, it’s technically feasible today. A determined developer could transcribe archives, fine-tune a language model, and overlay a cloned voice. The result wouldn’t be perfect, but it would be recognizable.

Whether that’s legal is another question – one circling directly around fair use.

Why It Matters

For most content creators, archives are their most valuable asset. Yet many contracts with networks, distributors, or hosting platforms quietly grant broad rights to use recordings in “new technologies.” That language, once ignored, could be the legal hook to justify training without your permission.

Fair use is the fallback defense. Tech companies argue training is transformative – they aren’t re-broadcasting your show, only using it to teach a machine. But fair use also weighs market harm. If “AI You” pulls listeners or sponsors away from the real thing, that argument weakens considerably.

Not Just Theory

Other industries are already here. AI has generated convincing tracks of Frank Sinatra singing pop hits and “new” stories written in the style of Jane Austen. If that can be done with a few books or albums, thousands of podcast episodes provide more than enough material to train a “host model.”

Talk media is especially vulnerable because its product is already conversational. The line between “fan remix” and “AI imitation” isn’t as wide as it seems.

What You Can Do

This isn’t about panic – it’s about preparation.

— Review your contracts: confirm you own your recordings and transcripts.
— Register your work: enforceable rights are stronger rights.
— Decide your stance: licensing your archives for training might be an opportunity – if you control it.
— Emphasize authenticity: audiences still value the human behind the mic.

The Takeaway

Could your podcast be turned into your competitor? Yes, in theory. Will it happen to you? That depends on your contracts, your protections, and the choices you make.

Fair use may ultimately decide these battles, but “fair” is not the same as safe. Consider this example a reminder: in the AI era, your archive is not just history – it is raw material.

Industry Views

When the Library Talks Back

By TALKERS | August 11, 2025August 11, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Imagine SiriusXM acquires the complete Howard Stern archive – every show, interview, and on-air moment. Months later, it debuts “Howard Stern: The AI Sessions,” a series of new segments created with artificial intelligence trained on that archive. The programming is labeled AI-generated, yet the voice, timing, and style sound like Stern himself.

Owning the recordings might suggest the right to create new works from them. In reality, the answer is more complicated – and the music industry offers a useful comparison.

Music Industry Precedent

Sony, Universal, and others have spent hundreds of millions buying music catalogs from artists such as Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Paul Simon, and Queen. These deals often include both composition rights and master recordings, giving the buyer broad control over licensing and derivative works.

In music, the song and the recording are the assets. In talk content, the defining element is the host’s persona – voice, cadence, and delivery – which changes the legal analysis when creating new material.

Copyright and Persona Rights

Buying a talk archive usually transfers copyright in the recordings and any scripts. That permits rebroadcast, excerpts, and repackaging of original programs.

It does not automatically transfer the host’s right of publicity – control over commercial use of their name, likeness, and in many states, their distinctive voice. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co. (1988), the court ruled that imitating Bette Midler’s voice in a commercial without consent was an unauthorized use of her identity.

This means a company can own the shows without having the right to make new performances in the host’s voice unless the contract clearly grants that right.

The AI Factor

AI technology can replicate a host’s voice, tone, and style with high accuracy, producing entirely new programming.

Outside broadcasting, a recent AI-generated George Carlin special – written by humans but performed by a voice model trained on decades of his work – sparked debate about rights and legacy.

In talk radio, similar AI use could create “new” episodes featuring well-known hosts. Even with clear labeling, right-of-publicity claims may arise if the host or their estate never authorized it. Disclaimers may address consumer confusion but do not remove identity-rights issues.

Why It Matters

This applies to more than national figures. Any broadcaster or podcaster with a substantial archive could face it. Selling or licensing a library could give the buyer the tools to replicate your voice without your participation.

For buyers, the ability to produce new content from archived material has commercial appeal. But without the right to use the host’s voice for new works, it carries significant legal and reputational risk.

Contracts Decide

The key is in the contract:

— Did the talent assign rights to their name, likeness, and voice for future works?
— Is use limited to original recordings or extended to derivative works?
— Does it address future technologies, including AI?

Older agreements often omit these points, leaving courts to decide. Future contracts will likely address AI directly.

Takeaways

For talent: Know what you are transferring. Copyright ownership does not necessarily include your future voice.

For buyers: Owning an archive does not automatically give you the right to create AI-generated new material in the original host’s voice.

For everyone: As AI advances, control over archives will depend on the contracts that govern them.

Industry Views

They Say YOU Infringed – But Do THEY Own the Rights?

By TALKERS | August 5, 2025 by TALKERS

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

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.

You’re confused. You’re cautious. And maybe you’re already reaching for the fair use defense.

But hold on. Before you argue about what you used, ask something simpler: Does the party accusing you actually own the rights?

Two Main Reasons People Send Copyright Notices

1. They believe they’re right – and they want to fix it. Sometimes the claim is legitimate. A rights-holder sees their content used without permission and takes action. They may send a DMCA takedown, request removal, or ask for a license fee. Whether it’s a clip, an image, or a music bed – the law is on their side if your use wasn’t authorized.
2. They’re casting a wide net – or making a mistake. Other times, you’ve landed in a mass enforcement dragnet. Some companies send thousands of notices hoping a few people will pay – whether or not the claim is strong, or even valid. These are often automated, sometimes sloppy, and occasionally bluffing. The sender may not own the rights. They may not even know if what you used was fair use, public domain, or licensed.

Mistakes happen. Bots misidentify content. Images get flagged that were never protected. Even legitimate copyright holders sometimes act too fast. But once a notice goes out, it can become your problem – unless you respond wisely.

The First Thing to Check Is Ownership

Most creators instinctively argue fair use or say they meant no harm. But those aren’t the first questions a lawyer asks.

The first question is: “Do they have standing to bring the claim?”

In many cases, the answer is unclear or flat-out “no.” Courts have dismissed copyright lawsuits where the claimant couldn’t show ownership or any active licensing interest. If they can’t demonstrate control over the work – and actual market harm – they may not have the right to sue.

What To Do If You Get a Notice

— Don’t panic. Not all claims are valid – and not all claimants are in a position to enforce them.
— Don’t assume fair use will protect you. It might, but only after ownership is clear.
— Don’t engage emotionally. Responding flippantly can escalate things fast.
— Do get help early. A media attorney can help you assess whether the claim is real – and whether the sender has any legal ground at all.

Industry Views

When One Clip Cuts Two Ways: How Copyright and Defamation Risks Collide

By TALKERS | July 21, 2025 by TALKERS

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

A radio (or video podcast) host grabs a viral clip, tosses in some sharp commentary, and shares it online. The goal? Make some noise. The result? A takedown notice for copyright infringement – and then a letter threatening a defamation suit.

Sound far-fetched? It’s not. In today’s media world, copyright misuse and defamation risks often run on parallel tracks – and sometimes crash into each other. They come from different areas of law, but creators are finding themselves tangled up in both over the same piece of content.

Copyright Protects Ownership. Defamation Protects Reputation

It’s easy to think of copyright and defamation as two separate beasts. One guards creative work. The other shields reputation. But when creators use or edit someone else’s content – especially for commentary, parody, or critique – both risks can hit at once.

Take Smith v. Summit Entertainment LLC (2007). Smith wrote an original song. Summit Entertainment slapped him with a false DMCA takedown notice, claiming copyright they didn’t actually own. Smith fought back, suing not just for the bogus takedown but also for defamation, arguing that Summit’s public accusations hurt his reputation. The court said both claims could go forward.

That case shows just how easily copyright claims and defamation threats can pile up when bad information meets bad behavior.

Murphy v. Millennium Radio: A Close Call with a Clear Message

In Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, a New Jersey radio station scanned a photographer’s work – with his credit – and posted it online without permission. That alone triggered a copyright claim. But the hosts didn’t stop there. They mocked the photographer on-air, which sparked a defamation lawsuit.

Even though the copyright and defamation claims came from different actions – using the photo without permission and trash-talking the photographer – they landed in the same legal fight. It’s a reminder that separate problems can quickly become one big headache.

Why This Double Threat Matters

— Fair Use Isn’t a Free Pass on Defamation. Even if you have a solid fair use argument, that won’t protect you if your edits or commentary twist facts or attack someone unfairly.
— Public Comments Can Double Your Trouble. The second you speak publicly about how you’re using content – whether you’re bragging about rights you don’t have or taking a shot at someone – you risk adding a defamation claim on top of an IP dispute.
— Smart Lawyers Play Both Angles. Plaintiffs know the playbook. They’ll use copyright claims for takedown leverage and defamation claims for reputational damage – sometimes in the same demand letter.
— FCC Rules Don’t Cover This. It doesn’t matter if you’re FCC-regulated or a podcaster on your own. These risks come from civil law – and they’re coming for everyone.

The Takeaway

The overlap between copyright and defamation isn’t just a legal footnote – it’s a growing reality. In a world of viral clips, reaction videos, and borrowed content, creators need to watch how they frame and comment on what they use, just as much as whether they have permission to use it in the first place.

Because when one clip cuts two ways, you could take a hit from both directions.

Industry Views

Neutraliars: The Platforms That Edit Like Publishers but Hide Behind Neutrality

By TALKERS | June 11, 2025 by TALKERS

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

In the golden age of broadcasting, the rules were clear. If you edited the message, you owned the consequences. That was the tradeoff for editorial control. But today’s digital platforms – YouTube, X, TikTok, Instagram – have rewritten that deal. Broadcasters and those who operate within the FCC regulatory framework are paying the price.

These companies claim to be neutral conduits for our content. But behind the curtain, they make choices that mirror the editorial judgment of any news director: flagging clips, muting interviews, throttling reach, and shadow banning accounts. All while insisting they bear no responsibility for the content they carry.

They want the control of publishers without the accountability. I call them neutraliars.

A “neutraliar” is a platform that claims neutrality while quietly shaping public discourse. It edits without transparency, enforces vague rules inconsistently, and hides bias behind shifting community standards.

Broadcasters understand the weight of editorial power. Reputation, liability, and trust come with every decision. But platforms operate under a different set of rules. They remove content for “context violations,” downgrade interviews for being “borderline,” and rarely offer explanations. No appeals. No accountability.

This isn’t just technical policy – it’s a legal strategy. Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, platforms enjoy broad immunity from liability related to user content. What was originally intended to allow moderation of obscene or unlawful material has become a catch-all defense for everything short of outright defamation or criminal conduct.

These companies act like editors when it suits them, curating and prioritizing content. But when challenged, they retreat behind the label of “neutral platform.” Courts, regulators, and lawmakers have mostly let it slide.

But broadcasters shouldn’t.

Neutraliars are distorting the public square. Not through overt censorship, but through asymmetry. Traditional broadcasters play by clear rules – standards of fairness, disclosure, and attribution. Meanwhile, tech platforms make unseen decisions that influence whether a segment is heard, seen, or quietly buried.

So, what’s the practical takeaway?

Don’t confuse distribution with trust.

Just because a platform carries your content doesn’t mean it supports your voice. Every upload is subject to algorithms, undisclosed enforcement criteria, and decisions made by people you’ll never meet. The clip you expected to go viral. Silenced. The balanced debate you aired. Removed for tone. The satire? Flagged for potential harm.

The smarter approach is to diversify your presence. Own your archive. Use direct communication tools – e-mail lists, podcast feeds, and websites you control. Syndicate broadly but never rely solely on one platform. Monitor takedowns and unexplained drops in engagement. These signals matter.

Platforms will continue to call themselves neutral as long as it protects their business model. But we know better. If a company edits content like a publisher and silences creators like a censor, it should be treated like both.

And when you get the inevitable takedown notice wrapped in vague policy language and polished PR spin, keep one word in mind.

Neutraliars.

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 HarrisonMediaLaw.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

Is That Even Legal? Talk Radio in the Age of Deepfake Voices: Where Fair Use Ends and the Law Steps In

By TALKERS | June 10, 2025 by TALKERS

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

In early 2024, voters in New Hampshire got strange robocalls. The voice sounded just like President Joe Biden, telling people not to vote in the primary. But it wasn’t him. It was an AI clone of his voice – sent out to confuse voters.

The calls were meant to mislead, not entertain. The response was quick. The FCC banned AI robocalls. State officials launched investigations. Still, a big question remains for radio and podcast creators:

Is using an AI cloned voice of a real person ever legal?

This question hits hard for talk radio, where satire, parody, and political commentary are daily staples. And the line between creative expression and illegal impersonation is starting to blur.

It’s already happening online. AI-generated clips of Howard Stern have popped up on TikTok and Reddit, making him say things he never actually said. They’re not airing on the radio yet – but they could be soon.

Then came a major moment. In 2024, a group called Dudesy released a fake comedy special called, “I’m Glad I’m Dead,” using AI to copy the voice and style of the late George Carlin. The hour-long show sounded uncannily like Carlin, and the creators claimed it was a tribute. His daughter, Kelly Carlin, strongly disagreed. The Carlin estate sued, calling it theft, not parody. That lawsuit could shape how courts treat voice cloning for years.

The danger isn’t just legal – it’s reputational. A cloned voice can be used to create fake outrage, fake interviews, or fake endorsements. Even if meant as satire, if it’s too realistic, it can do real damage.

So, what does fair use actually protect? It covers commentary, criticism, parody, education, and news. But a voice isn’t just creative work – it’s part of someone’s identity. That’s where the right of publicity comes in. It protects how your name, image, and voice are used, especially in commercial settings.

If a fake voice confuses listeners, suggests false approval, or harms someone’s brand, fair use probably won’t apply. And if it doesn’t clearly comment on the real person, it’s not parody – it’s just impersonation.

For talk show hosts and podcasters, here’s the bottom line: use caution. If you’re using AI voices, make it obvious they’re fake. Add labels. Give context. And best of all, avoid cloning real people unless you have their OK.

Fair use is a shield – but it’s not a free pass. When content feels deceptive, the law – and your audience – may not be forgiving.

Industry Views

When the Algorithm Misses the Mark: What the Walters v. OpenAI Case Means for Talk Hosts

By TALKERS | May 20, 2025January 6, 2026 by TALKERS

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

In a ruling that should catch the attention of every talk host and media creator dabbling in AI, a Georgia court has dismissed “Armed American Radio” syndicated host Mark Walters’ defamation lawsuit against OpenAI. The case revolved around a disturbing but increasingly common glitch: a chatbot “hallucinating” canonically false but believable information.

The Happenings: A journalist asked ChatGPT to summarize a real court case. Instead, the AI invented a fictional lawsuit accusing Walters of embezzling from the Second Amendment Foundation — a group with which he’s never been employed. The journalist spotted the error and never published inaccurate information. But the damage, at least emotionally and reputationally, was done. That untruth was out there, and Walters sued for defamation.

Last week, the court kicked the case. The court determined Walters was a public figure, and as such, Walters had to prove “actual malice” — that OpenAI knowingly or recklessly published falsehoods. He couldn’t but now it may be impossible.

The judge emphasized the basis that there was an assumption false information was never shared publicly. It stayed within a private conversation between the journalist and ChatGPT. No dissemination, no defamation.

But while OpenAI may have escaped liability, the ruling raises serious questions for the rest in the content creation space.

What This Means for Talk Hosts

Let’s be honest: AI tools like ChatGPT are already part of the media ecosystem. Hosts use them to summarize articles, brainstorm show topics, generate ad copy, and even suggest guest questions. They’re efficient — and also dangerous.

This case shows just how easily AI can generate falsehoods with confidence and detail. If a host were to read something like that hallucinated lawsuit on air, without verifying it, the legal risk would shift. It wouldn’t be the AI company on the hook — it would be the broadcaster who repeated it.

Key Lessons

AI is not a source.
It’s a starting point. Just like a tip from a caller or a line on social media, AI-generated content must be verified before use.
Public figures are more exposed.
The legal system gives less protection to people in the public eye — like talk hosts — and requires a higher burden of proof in defamation claims. That cuts both ways.
Disclosure helps.
OpenAI’s disclaimers about potential inaccuracies helped them in court. On air, disclosing when you use AI can offer similar protection — and builds trust with your audience.
Editorial judgment still rules.
No matter how fast or slick AI gets, it doesn’t replace a producer’s instincts or a host’s responsibility.

Bottom line: the lawsuit may be over, but the conversation is just beginning. The more we rely on machines to shape our words, the more we need to sharpen our filters. Because when AI gets it wrong, the real fallout hits the human behind the mic.

And for talk hosts, that means the stakes are personal. Your credibility, your syndication, your audience trust — none of it can be outsourced to an algorithm. AI might be a tool in the kit, but editorial judgment is still the sharpest weapon in your arsenal. Use it. Or risk learning the hard way what Mark Walters just did. Walters has yet to comment on what steps – if any – he and his lawyers will take next.

TALKERS publisher Michael Harrison issued the following comment regarding the Georgia ruling: “In the age of internet ‘influencers’ and media personalities with various degrees of clout operating within the same space, the definition of ‘public figure’ is far less clear than in earlier times. The media and courts must revisit this striking change. Also, in an era of self-serving political weaponization, this ruling opens the door to ‘big tech’ having enormous, unbridled power in influencing the circumstances of news events and reputations to meet its own goals and agendas.”

Matthew B. Harrison is a media attorney and executive producer specializing in broadcast law, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. He serves as VP/Associate Publisher of TALKERS magazine and is a senior partner at Harrison Media Law. He also leads creative development at Goodphone Communications.

Industry News

Outstanding Speakers Joining “GENERATIONS 2025” Agenda

By TALKERS | January 30, 2025January 30, 2025 by TALKERS

The lineup of industry speakers set to speak at the forthcoming GENERATIONS 2025 conference being presented by TALKERS at the forthcoming Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS) convention – IBSNYC 2025 – continues to grow.

A stellar line-up of speakers have already signed up to speak at this groundbreaking industry event including (in alphabetical order): Vince Benedetto, CEO, Bold Gold Media Group; Chris Berry, VP News/Talk/Sports, iHeartMedia; Scot Bertram, General Manager, WRFH, Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI / Lecturer In Journalism; Mike Gallagher, talk show host, Salem Radio Network; Dom Giordano, talk show host, WPHT, Philadelphia; Lee Harris, Director of Integrated Operations, NewsNation / WGN, Chicago; Michael Harrison, Publisher, TALKERS; Matthew B. Harrison, Esq., VP/Associate Publisher, TALKERS; Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner; Harry Hurley, morning talk show host, WPG, Atlantic City; Jeff Katz, talk show host, WRVA, Richmond, VA; Chad Lopez, President, WABC, New York, Red Apple Media Group; John T. Mullen, general manager, WRHU-FM/WRHU.org, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY; Walter Sabo (a.k.a. Walter M Sterling), consultant / talk show host / WPHT, Philadelphia / Talk Media Network; Rich Valdés, talk show host, Westwood One; with several more to be announced in the next few days. See agenda and accompanying stories below.

Sheraton Times Square New York Hotel
New York East Room
Saturday March 8, 2025
12:30 pm – 4:30 pm

AGENDA

12:30 – 1:00 pm Keynote Address “Welcome to the Brave New World”

Speakers:
Michael Harrison, Publisher, TALKERS
Matthew B. Harrison, Esq., VP/Associate Publisher, TALKERS; Harrison Media Law, Senior Partner

1:10 – 1:40 pm Fireside Chat “Setting the Stage”

Facilitator: Michael Harrison, Publisher, TALKERS
Special Guest: Chad Lopez, President, WABC, New York, Red Apple Media Group

1:50 – 2:20 pm Discussion: “Launching and Managing a Career in a Changing Media Industry”

Moderator: Dom Giordano, talk show host, WPHT, Philadelphia
Speaker: John T. Mullen, general manager, WRHU-FM/WRHU.org, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY
Speaker: TBA
Speaker: TBA

2:30 – 3:00 pm Discussion: “Old School/New School/Next School – Learning from Each Other”

Moderator: Harry Hurley, morning talk show host, WPG, Atlantic City
Speaker: Vince Benedetto, CEO, Bold Gold Media Group
Speaker: Scot Bertram, General Manager, WRFH, Hillsdale College, Hillsdale, MI / Lecturer In Journalism
Speaker: Walter Sabo (a.k.a. Walter M Sterling), consultant / talk show host / WPHT, Philadelphia / Talk Media Network

3:10 – 3:40 pm Discussion: “Radio’s Place in a Diverse, Digital World”

Moderator: TBA
Speaker: Mike Gallagher, talk show host, Salem Radio Network
Speaker: Rich Valdés, talk show host, Westwood One
Speaker: TBA

3:50 – 4:20 pm Discussion: “Finding Truth in an Age of Misinformation”

Moderator: Lee Harris, Director of Integrated Operations, NewsNation / WGN, Chicago
Speaker: Chris Berry, VP News/Talk/Sports, iHeartMedia
Speaker: Jeff Katz, talk show host, WRVA, Richmond, VA
Speaker: TBA

4:20 – 4:30 pm Wrap Up: Group Chat

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network

Share this with your network