Matthew B. Harrison – TALKERS magazine

Is the Algorithm Your New Program Director?

By TALKERS | August 12, 2026 by TALKERS

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

You post five clips from yesterday’s program. Four do fine. The fifth, an argument with a caller, explodes. It gets more views, more comments, more shares and more click time than anything else you posted.

So tomorrow you post another argument.

That one performs too. Before long, you are clipping more confrontations because confrontation travels. Then maybe the show itself begins to change. You stay on the angry topic a little longer. You take the provocative call you might once have dumped. You learn what gets rewarded.

Nobody at YouTube, Facebook or TikTok called and told you to make an angrier show. The algorithm did not order you to do anything. It simply showed you what produced a reaction, and you reacted to the reward.

Radio people have seen versions of this forever. The phones light up, so we stay with the topic. A feature appears to perform well in PPM, so it gets another quarter hour. Ratings rise, so management asks for more of whatever seems to be working.

Digital distribution makes that feedback faster, more visible and harder to ignore. It also adds another wrinkle: the platform may use strong engagement to give the next clip more distribution. The reward is not just a good number on a report. It may be a bigger audience tomorrow.

That makes analytics tremendously useful. They can show what attracts attention, what holds audience and what helps people discover your program. But a measurement tool can become a programming influence if you start chasing every spike.

A good host learns from the audience without becoming a hostage to it. A good programmer knows what works without assuming that whatever gets the biggest reaction is automatically the best show.

Use the algorithm to distribute your work. Learn from what it tells you. Make money wherever the audience finds you.

Just don’t appoint it the role of program director.

For the larger discussion of ratings, PPM and digital distribution, read The Algorithm Is Listening at TALKERS.com here.

Matthew B. Harrison, associate publisher of TALKERS, 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.

Industry Views

The Algorithm Knows What You Did But It Doesn’t Know Why

By TALKERS | August 10, 2026August 10, 2026 by TALKERS

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

A viewer watches the same political clip three times. The platform sees a powerful signal: this person stopped, stayed, and came back. What it cannot reliably know is whether the viewer loved the argument, hated it, was factchecking it, or was showing it to someone else in disbelief. The algorithm knows a viewer watched. It does not necessarily know why. That is why YouTube looks beyond viewing itself to other signals of appeal, engagement, and satisfaction.

That distinction matters to broadcasters because digital analytics can look much more intelligent than they really are. An algorithm can measure behavior with extraordinary precision, but behavior is not motive. PPM taught radio a version of the same lesson. Nielsen’s meter can passively detect exposure to encoded audio, but the resulting audience measurement cannot tell a programmer why someone listened or why audience levels changed.

Livestreaming creates the opposite problem. Instead of too little explanation, the host suddenly gets too much of it. The chat is moving. People are demanding another topic, praising a guest, attacking a caller, or announcing that the segment is dying.

That feedback is valuable, but the people typing are not necessarily representative of the people listening. Radio hosts should already understand this because callers have never represented the entire audience. They represent the portion motivated enough to pick up the telephone. Livestream chat is the same phenomenon at digital speed.

The danger comes when these two imperfect signals reinforce each other. The dashboard says engagement jumped. The chat says, “More of this.” A host can easily conclude that the audience has spoken when what actually happened is that a particularly active portion of the audience became particularly visible.

Good broadcasters have always listened to the audience without surrendering the show to it. Digital tools make that listening faster and more detailed, but they do not eliminate the need for judgment.

The algorithm knows what people did. The chat tells you what some people said. The programmer still has to decide what either one means.

For the larger discussion of ratings, PPM, algorithms and digital distribution, read The Algorithm Is Listening here: https://talkers.com/category/industry-views/

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.

Industry Views

The Algorithm is Listening

By TALKERS | August 4, 2026August 5, 2026 by TALKERS

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

Radio once measured the audience… now digital platforms use the audience to decide what happens next

Radio programmers have always watched the audience. The difference for programmers today is that the audience can now watch back, respond instantly, influence the show, and determine whether the next person ever receives it.

That is the practical meaning of an algorithm for a broadcaster. It is not a mysterious robot hiding inside the black box of an enigmatic social platform. It is a set of instructions used to make decisions. On YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Spotify, Twitch, and other services, those instructions help determine which content gets shown, to whom, in what order, and under what circumstances.

Radio has used simpler forms of algorithmic thinking for decades. A music clock is a set of instructions. So is a rule prohibiting two songs by the same artist within a specified period. Or two female vocals in a row. A programmer who schedules news at the top of the hour, traffic twice an hour, and the strongest feature before a commercial break has created a decision system.

Digital algorithms do something more consequential. They do not merely organize the program. They organize the audience around each individual piece of content.

From diaries to PPM

The traditional radio diary asked selected listeners to record what they heard and when they heard it. Nielsen defines the diary as a measurement method in which respondents manually record their listening habits. Those reported habits are then used to estimate listening across a larger market.

The system was necessarily crude. A diary could show that someone reported listening to a station during morning drive. It could not reliably establish whether that person loved the program, ignored it, hated it, stayed because the station was playing in a waiting room, or simply remembered the call letters incorrectly.

Still, the diary produced an enormously valuable number. Ratings influenced advertising rates, station formats, talent contracts, syndication opportunities, and management decisions. The ratings service measured the audience, but the station still controlled the programming and the transmitter.

The Portable People Meter changed the speed and granularity of that feedback. PPM panelists carry a small device that detects inaudible identification codes embedded in participating broadcasts. Instead of relying entirely on a listener’s memory and written entry, the meter passively detects exposure to encoded audio.

That gave programmers something closer to immediate feedback. They could study audience movement within smaller portions of a show, identify apparent tune-out points, compare features, evaluate commercial breaks, and make changes much more quickly.

PPM therefore became the bridge between traditional ratings and algorithmic distribution. The diary remembered the audience. PPM observed the audience more closely. Both still produced information for human beings to interpret.

A programmer could see a decline and decide to shorten a segment. The meter did not shorten it. A consultant could conclude that a feature hurt retention. The PPM system did not prevent tomorrow’s listeners from hearing it.

The algorithm closes that gap.

(more…)

Industry Views

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

By TALKERS | August 3, 2026August 18, 2026 by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, 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@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

When AI Speaks, Who’s Accountable?

By TALKERS | July 31, 2026July 31, 2026 by TALKERS

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

New laws may hold AI companies responsible, but regulating machine-generated speech presents risks of its own.

Florida recently sued OpenAI and CEO Sam Altman, alleging that they marketed ChatGPT while concealing known safety risks. California has taken a different approach: a company accused of causing harm cannot defend itself simply by saying the AI acted autonomously. Neither development guarantees liability, but both signal that “the AI did it” may no longer work as a legal escape hatch.

That sounds sensible. An AI model cannot pay damages, carry insurance, exercise professional judgment, or go to jail. If a company releases a system, profits from it, and markets it as useful or reliable, the law should at least ask what the company knew, promised, and reasonably could have prevented.

Mark Walters – host of Armed America Radio – learned how difficult that can be. ChatGPT falsely reported that he had been accused of embezzling money from a gun-rights organization. Walters sued OpenAI for defamation, but a Georgia court granted the company summary judgment in 2025, finding insufficient evidence that OpenAI knew the output was probably false. The machine was wrong; the legal remedy failed.

The harder question involves speech. Colorado adopted requirements intended to prevent discriminatory automated decisions, prompting AI to sue on First Amendment and equal-protection grounds. The Federal Trade Commission has now suggested that secretly steering a model away from the accurate or objective answers users expect could itself constitute consumer deception.

This presents a genuine slippery slope. Government should protect people from fraud, defamation, discrimination, dangerous products, and nonconsensual deepfakes. It should not acquire a broad power to decide what an AI system must identify as “truth,” particularly in areas involving politics, history, public policy, or contested scientific opinion.

For broadcasters and content creators, the immediate lesson remains familiar. AI may assist with research, writing, editing, and production, but it does not inherit responsibility for the finished product. The person or company that publishes the words still needs to verify them, while the companies building the machines should not escape scrutiny merely because no human typed the final sentence.

Accountability should follow control, knowledge, and profit. The challenge will be imposing that accountability without turning AI regulation into government supervision of lawful speech.

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.

Industry News TALKERS 2026

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

By TALKERS | June 18, 2026August 18, 2026 by TALKERS

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

The Advertiser Gave It To Me. Isn’t That Enough?

By TALKERS | June 11, 2026June 11, 2026 by TALKERS

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

A local advertiser sends over a ready-made commercial. The music is catchy. The script is polished. The production value is surprisingly good for a company that spends most of its day installing garage doors.

The salesperson approves it. Traffic schedules it. The spot airs.

A few months later, somebody else’s lawyer hears it too.

Many media professionals assume that when an advertiser supplies content, the advertiser has already secured whatever permissions are necessary to use it. Sometimes that’s true. Sometimes it isn’t.

If a commercial contains copyrighted music, photographs, video, artwork, or other protected material, the fact that it came from a client does not automatically end the discussion. The advertiser may have obtained the rights. The advertiser may have assumed someone else obtained the rights. The advertiser may never have asked.

Artificial intelligence is creating new versions of the same problem.

Recently, I was asked about a commercial generated almost entirely through AI. The advertiser used one platform to create the script and another to generate the voice. Everything sounded original. No famous song. No movie clip. No obvious red flags.

Yet one question remained:

How do you know the advertiser had the right to use it?

That question can lead in several directions. Did the AI platform permit commercial use? Was the voice modeled after a real person? Does it sound enough like a celebrity to create endorsement concerns? Can the advertiser demonstrate where the content came from and what rights accompany it?

Fortunately, the solution is usually simple. Ask the advertiser.

Most legitimate advertisers are happy to explain how the content was created and what rights they possess. The conversation often takes only a few minutes.

Broadcasters, podcasters, streamers, and digital creators all face the same reality. Before a commercial airs, someone should know where the content came from and whether the necessary rights exist.

The technology may change. The question remains remarkably durable: How do you know you had the right to use this?

Industry News

Heritage Band Gunhill Road Cracks a Million Listens/Views Fueled by Talk Radio Exposure

By TALKERS | May 21, 2026May 21, 2026 by TALKERS

Talk radio-fueled music group Gunhill Road has surpassed one million listens and views on a variety of online platforms including YouTube. The four-member ensemble, consisting of Steve Goldrich, Paul Reisch, Brian Koonin, and (TALKERS founder) Michael Harrison, has found a new worldwide online audience fueled largely by interviews and airplay on news/talk radio, specifically over the past six years. The group is known for its provocative lyrics and subject matter (which makes it popular with talk show hosts), along with eye-catching videos (produced by Matthew B. Harrison) and an array of superbly played musical styles. Gunhill Road has been writing and recording a wide variety of songs contained in four albums since the late-sixties, including the 1973 top 40 hit single, “Back When My Hair Was Short.” The group’s colorful history was the subject of a 2017 feature film documentary titled, “Every 40 Years.” They will be releasing their long-awaited fifth album in late June.

Formed in Mount Vernon, New York by Steve Goldrich and Glenn Leopold in the late-sixties and named after an iconic thoroughfare in the Bronx, Gunhill Road has grown through several musical and personnel chapters for more than a half century. In its current incarnation, Gunhill Road addresses such compelling themes as politics, technology, relationships, aging, animal welfare, modern anxiety, the First Amendment and other issues that are aligned with the topics discussed on talk radio.

Gunhill Road’s internet hits include:

“Idiots” click here

“AI (No Robots Were Injured in the Recording of this Song)” click here

“Close My Ears” click here

“Damn Scammers” click here

“Don’t Stop Talking” click here

“I Know You’re Real” click here

For more information about Gunhill Road call Barbara Kurland at TALKERS: 413-565-5413

Industry Views

When Your Voice Becomes the Product

By TALKERS | May 14, 2026August 18, 2026 by TALKERS

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

For 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.

Industry Views

TALKERS Books Announces Publication of Playing the Clip: The Digital Media Creator’s Legal Guide to Fair Use

By Editor | April 24, 2026April 24, 2026 by Editor

TALKERS Books announces the release of, Playing the Clip: The Digital Media Creator’s Legal Guide to Fair Use, by media attorney (and TALKERS magazine associate publisher) Matthew B. Harrison, a work designed for today’s news/talk media environment where audio, video, screenshots, and quotes are not just supporting elements – but serve as the actual content itself. This technique has become particularly prevalent on YouTube and even cable news/talk TV but increasingly appears in audio form as what used to be called “actualities” – sound from another source.

The book introduces and defines what TALKERS identifies as the “Play the Clip” technique: the now-standard practice across broadcasting, podcasting, streaming, and social platforms of presenting the source material rather than merely describing it. Although this practice has become ubiquitous, it leaves content creators and providers vulnerable to legal ambiguity, uncertainty, and consequences.

At a time when creators increasingly rely on third-party media to inform, critique, and engage audiences, Playing the Clip addresses a persistent gap between how content is created and how the law evaluates it. The book explains the legal concept of fair use not as a permission structure, but as a legal defense raised after copying has already occurred – an uncomfortable but essential distinction that underpins the entire analysis.

Rather than offering abstract theory or checklist-style guidance, the book focuses on how courts actually evaluate real-world uses. It examines the operational realities creators face: platform incentives, inconsistent enforcement, monetization pressures, and the false sense of security created by what “everyone else is doing.”

The central premise is straightforward: infringement is the starting point, not the conclusion- and fair use, when it applies, is the justification that must be built from there.

Playing the Clip is now available:

Print Edition (Amazon): $24.95
Kindle Edition (Amazon): Limited-time promotional price of $1.00

Free to TALKERS subscribers

In addition, TALKERS is making the book available at no cost to its readership for a limited time.

Below is a form just for TALKERS readers. Just submit your email address to receive access to a free digital copy, available in either EPUB or PDF format, depending on preference. This offer is intended to ensure that working media creators -regardless of platform or budget – can access the material during its initial release window. To receive a free book, please click here.

Industry News

Cumulus v. Nielsen: Harm Has Already Happened

By TALKERS | April 23, 2026April 23, 2026 by TALKERS

The latest court filing in the Cumulus v Nielsen monopolistic practices suit tells the court it is no longer asking it to prevent harm, it’s asking the court to recognize that the harm has already happened. The filing states: “After a three-day evidentiary hearing, the District Court ruled for Cumulus, finding that Nielsen’s unlawful tying would irreparably injure Cumulus’s relationships with advertisers, goodwill, and market share, and push it towards financial collapse. The District Court accordingly enjoined Nielsen’s anticompetitive conduct. Nielsen’s brief attacks those findings as speculative, asserting that Cumulus never showed any real risk of bankruptcy or any other non-compensable harm, but one of those irreparable harms has now come to pass: After a motions panel stayed the injunction, Cumulus declared bankruptcy—citing “the Nielsen network tying policy” as a significant contributing cause. The other harms identified by the District Court remain today and have become increasingly urgent, as Cumulus will lose access to Nationwide this September.” TALKERS associate publisher and Harrison Media Law senior partner Matthew B. Harrison comments, “Cumulus has fundamentally shifted the posture of this case. What began as a forward-looking claim of irreparable harm is now being presented as a realized outcome, following its Chapter 11 filing. The appellate court is no longer being asked to prevent potential damage, but to assess whether the harm that has already occurred can be attributed to Nielsen’s challenged conduct — or to broader economic pressures facing the radio industry.”

Industry Views

Creators, Commentators, or Publishers: Liability Remains the Same

By TALKERS | April 10, 2026April 10, 2026 by TALKERS

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

The rise of independent, talk show-style political commentary on YouTube has created a new class of media actors who do not see themselves as broadcasters, journalists, or publishers. They see themselves as creators. That distinction is real in terms of identity, tone, and platform. It is not real where it matters most: liability.

The difference exists in how the work is produced and presented. It disappears the moment the content is published.

In practice, these creators are engaging in acts that courts have long recognized as publication. They are selecting topics, framing narratives, editing clips, and distributing content to large audiences. Those decisions are not neutral. They are editorial.

The absence of FCC regulation in this space has created a persistent misunderstanding. Traditional broadcasters operate under a regulatory framework that includes licensing and content restrictions. Independent creators do not. But the lack of FCC oversight does not reduce exposure. It removes one layer of regulation while leaving the core legal risk fully intact.

Defamation law applies equally to both groups. A false statement of fact about a real person that causes reputational harm can give rise to liability whether it is spoken on a licensed radio station or uploaded to a monetized YouTube channel. The standards may differ depending on whether the subject is a public or private figure, but the underlying obligation remains the same: accuracy matters.

There is no YouTube exception. There is no creator carveout. The law does not care how the content was distributed, what the platform calls you, or how you see yourself. It cares who made the statement, who chose to publish it, and whether it was false.

The structure of YouTube content introduces additional risk. Many creators rely on rapid production cycles and clip-based commentary. This increases the likelihood of error, particularly when context is compressed or omitted. Editing choices that seem minor from a production standpoint can materially change meaning, which is precisely the type of conduct that courts examine in defamation and false light claims.

Monetization further complicates the analysis. Revenue from ads, memberships, or sponsorships strengthens the argument that content is commercial in nature. That does not eliminate First Amendment protections, but it can influence how a court evaluates intent and reasonableness.

There is also a tendency to assume that platform norms provide a form of protection. If a piece of content is allowed to remain online, or even promoted by an algorithm, it can feel implicitly validated. That assumption is misplaced. Platform enforcement decisions are not legal determinations. They are business judgments.

The most important point is simple and often overlooked. Liability does not turn on intent. It turns on what was said, whether it was false, and whether reasonable steps were taken to verify it.

The platform may change how content looks. It may change how fast it spreads. It may change who gets to participate.

It does not change the consequences of getting it wrong.

Time passes. Technology and fancy packaging change. Exposure and liability do not.

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises talk show 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.

Industry Views

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 Legal Group, 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.

Industry News

TALKERS Magazine Enthusiastically Supports the 2026 IBS Conference in New York as its Presenting Sponsor

By TALKERS | February 9, 2026February 9, 2026 by TALKERS

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

TALKERS magazine, the leading trade publication serving America’s professional broadcast talk radio and associated digital communities since 1990, is pleased to participate as the presenting sponsor of the forthcoming Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS) conference for the second consecutive year.

IBS NYC 2026 – America’s preeminent annual college radio and media gathering – will take place February 19-21 at the Sheraton Times Square Hotel in midtown Manhattan. The non-profit, volunteer-driven, IBS has been diligently serving student broadcasters since 1940, and its services are needed today more than ever.

Campus broadcasting continues to take on growing importance as the radio industry (and its related fields) seeks to connect with and develop a next generation of professional practitioners as well as engaged audiences. TALKERS is honored to again provide financial support, encouragement, experience, and advice to the dedicated organizers of this very special event.

We highly recommend that radio and media professionals attend this dynamic gathering because the grass roots future of the field oozes out of its content-rich meeting rooms, exhibition areas, and hallways. It provides fertile ground at which to network with almost a thousand wide-eyed up and coming stars in both talent and management – the next generation of professional industry movers and shakers. From the high school, college, and university perspective, the fact that it continues to be a must-attend conference for dedicated students of communication and professional media hopefuls remains a self-evident truth. Here, in the early stages of the second quarter of the 21^st century, everybody’s in show biz and everybody’s a star. To quote Ray Davies, “There are stars in every city, in every house and on every street.”

The skills of modern communication are a vocational necessity well beyond entering a career in radio, TV or podcasting. The abilities to produce a podcast, YouTube video, social media campaign, cogent press release, or “talk show” constitute a minimal level of modern age literacy needed in almost all fields of endeavor going forward.

Since its launch nearly four decades ago, TALKERS magazine has been a potent presence at the intersection of media creation, education, and accountability. That’s why our support of the Intercollegiate Broadcasting System (IBS) conference isn’t just symbolic – it’s practical.

The next generation of broadcasters, podcasters, digital hosts, producers, and media entrepreneurs is already building the future of this industry. IBS has been helping them do that – consistently, seriously, and without shortcuts – for decades.

Campus stations are often where experimentation happens first:

New formats
New voices
New distribution models
New cultural conversations
New technology
New legal frontiers

IBS recognizes that reality and treats student media creators with the same seriousness the industry demands at the professional level. This aligns directly with our TALKERS mission: supporting informed, responsible, creative media across emerging platforms.

We’re not simply sponsoring a conference. We’re investing in the people who will define the next era of media.

For more information on the 2026 IBS conference, please click HERE.

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 Legal Group, 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 Legal Group, 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 Legal Group, 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 News

Harrison “Close My Ears Tour” Tackles National Anxiety Issues

By TALKERS | November 13, 2025August 7, 2026 by TALKERS

TALKERS founder Michael Harrison has been busy addressing the most pressing talk radio issues being discussed in the media today during what is being called the “Close My Ears Tour” in support of the latest Gunhill Road track, “Close My Ears.” Gunhill Road is the perennial four-man music group of which Harrison is a member, along with Steve Goldrich, Paul Reisch, and Brian Koonin. Among their extensive repertoire of contemporary styles going all the way back to the early 1970s (and their early hit, “Back When My Hair Was Short”), the ensemble specializes in issue-oriented songs (and leading-edge music videos produced by Matthew B. Harrison) that have gathered a worldwide following of more than a half million fans fueled largely by airplay and interviews on talk radio. The group’s latest non-partisan release, “Close My Ears,” focuses on the wave of anxiety sweeping the nation over the political contentiousness spewing from the media during this age of what Harrison describes as “non-stop noise.” Harrison says, “The song addresses, and thus gives us the opportunity to discuss, the threats of inflation, recession, war, pollution, nuclear annihilation, political strife, crime, homelessness, depression, anxiety, widespread ignorance, pandemics, fake news, and a growing lack of trust in institutions, both private and public.” To book an interview with Michael Harrison, call TALKERS at 413-565-5413 or email info@talkers.com. To listen to an interview with Harrison conducted on November 6 by Dave Michaels on KSCO, Santa Cruz, CA, please click here. To view the “Close My Ears” music video, please click here.

Industry News

Bibi Farber Performs Guest Vocals on New Gunhill Road Song

By TALKERS | October 27, 2025October 27, 2025 by TALKERS

Bibi Farber (right), daughter of the late talk radio legend Barry Farber, has recorded a guest vocal appearance on a brand new Gunhill Road song titled, “You Don’t Seem Old to Me,” which will appear on the group’s forthcoming fifth album. The track is a sentimental love song examining the lifelong love affair of a fictional couple from childhood to old age – an emotional roller coaster ride reflecting the romantic ups and downs of a complex relationship. The tear-jerker is a departure from the heavy-hitting social commentaries that have made Gunhill Road a favorite among talk radio hosts and audiences for the past half decade. The intriguing group, formed in the late 1960s, is still going strong with core members Steve Goldrich, Paul Reisch, Brian Koonin, and Michael Harrison. Matthew B. Harrison produces the ensemble’s videos that employ leading-edge techniques and technology. Ms. Farber, who shares lead vocals on the song with Brian Koonin, is a talented singer, songwriter, and instrumentalist with a number of singles, albums and television commercial soundtracks among her credits. She is presently an advocate for the well-being of nursing home residents and organizer of initiatives to bring live music into their lives. To watch the music video for “You Don’t Seem Old to Me,” please click here. To learn more about Bibi Farber please click here.

Industry News

Gunhill Road Drops Issue-Oriented Music Video Focusing on the Non-Stop Noise of Contentious Media in a Crisis-Ridden Era

By TALKERS | October 17, 2025October 20, 2025 by TALKERS

Gunhill Road, the perennial pop music ensemble that has been creating issue-oriented reflections of the times since the iconic “Back When My Hair Was Short” hit the charts in the early 70s, is back with another powerful music video. The brand new, gritty rocker, “Close My Ears,” captures the sheer angst of today’s anxiety pandemic fueled by contentious talk media and the gut-wrenching chaos of informational overload. Non-partisan lyrics cry out: “Too much information clogging up my brain… and I can’t change the station; it’s driving me insane!” Co-written and performed by band members Steve Goldrich, Paul Reisch, Brian Koonin, and Michael Harrison, the dramatic images accompanying the music include a dynamic montage of exasperated people being driven to the brink of madness by the pressure of what feels like non-stop, negative NOISE. Produced by Matthew B. Harrison, the video asks, is the remedy to drop off the grid and go live in the woods? Gunhill Road has amassed a huge worldwide following gathering almost a half million listens, views and downloads driven largely by airplay and exposure on talk radio! To view “Close My Ears,” please click here: closemyears.com. To arrange an interview about the song and the times it reflects with band member (and TALKERS publisher) Michael Harrison please email info@talkers.com or call 413-565-5413. To check out the launch of Michael Harrison’s national media tour in support of the new “Close My Ears” music video, check out his October 9 appearance on the Lee Elci morning show on WJJF (94.9 News Now), New London, CT and Patriot.TV by clicking here.

Industry Views

Why “Play the Clip” Still Matters

By TALKERS | October 17, 2025 by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, 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 Legal Group, 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

When Borrowed Becomes Stolen: The Fair Use Line for Talk Hosts and Podcasters

By TALKERS | September 29, 2025September 29, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Jimmy Kimmel’s first monologue back after the recent suspension had the audience laughing and gasping, and, in the hands of countless radio hosts and podcasters, replaying. Within hours, clips of his bit weren’t just being shared online. They were being chopped up, (re)framed, and (re)analyzed as if they were original show content. For listeners, that remix feels fresh. For lawyers, it is a fair use minefield.

Playing the Clip, Owning the Take

Audiences increasingly expect their favorite talkers to “play the clip,” whether it is from Kimmel, Stephen Colbert, Sid Rosenberg, or Charlamagne tha God on The Breakfast Club (a show that seems to go viral every other week), and then add their own color commentary, the kind of play-by-play that makes it feel like the home team is calling the action. That format works. It gives context, tone, and a sense of immediacy that no transcript can match. Done right, it is what transforms a broadcast from just a recap into a fulfilling cultural conversation.

But with every replay comes a risk. Fair use does not mean free use. Courts weigh factors like how much of the original work you used, whether your purpose was transformative, and whether your use cuts into the market value of the original. Playing a short excerpt of Kimmel’s joke before riffing on it? Likely fair. Running half the monologue and treating it as your A-block? That edges into trouble, both legally and from a programming perspective. Why would anyone want to hear your take if your “take” is mostly replaying someone else? That is not adding to the common zeitgeist; it is just echoing it.

The Podcaster and Broadcaster Dilemma

Radio hosts have long leaned on “newsworthiness” as a shield. Podcasters often assume the same rules apply. But here is the distinction: news clips and comedy bits are not treated equally in court. A station rebroadcasting a press conference is serving public information. A podcast re-airing Kimmel is competing directly with Kimmel’s own clips on YouTube. One informs, the other risks replacing.

And while linking to ABC or YouTube is a courtesy, just as crediting them in the video itself might be, it does not replace the traffic (and ad dollars) Kimmel’s team expects. The law does not guarantee creators compensation for commentary, but judges do consider market harm. If your listeners stop watching the original because your show already gave them the “best parts,” you have tilted the scale against yourself. John Oliver is often credited (though no one seems able to find the clip): “People are always going to say stupid things, and you’re always going to be able to make jokes about that, but it should be the last thing you add in, because it is the easiest thing.”

Whether he actually said it or not almost proves the point. Recycling someone else’s words without context is the laziest move in the book. And if you cannot find the source? That is about as meta as fair use gets.

The Takeaway

Here is the smart play: use less and say more. A 20-second clip followed by two minutes of commentary is transformative. A five-minute clip with a shrug and a chuckle is not. Audiences do not tune in to hear Kimmel again. They tune in to hear what you think about Kimmel. The moment you let someone else’s content carry your show, you lose both legal ground and creative authority.

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 Legal Group, 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

Are Your AI Logos Actually Kryptonite?

By TALKERS | September 8, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Superman just flew into court – not against Lex Luthor, but against Midjourney. Warner Bros. Discovery is suing the AI platform, accusing it of stealing the studio’s crown jewels: Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Scooby-Doo, Bugs Bunny, and more.

At first glance, you might shrug. “That’s Warner Bros. vs. Silicon Valley – what does it have to do with my talk media show?” Here’s the answer: everything. If you or your producer are using Midjourney, DALL·E, or Stable Diffusion for logos, promos, or podcast cover art, you’re standing in the same blast radius.

AI Isn’t Neutral Paint

The romance of AI graphics is speed and cost. Need a logo in five minutes? A flyer for a station event? A podcast cover? Fire up an AI tool and you’re done.

But those images don’t come from a blank canvas. They come from models trained on copyrighted works – often without permission. Warner Bros. alleges that Midjourney not only trained on its characters but knowingly let users download knockoff versions.

If Warner wins – or even squeezes a settlement – AI platforms will clamp down. Suddenly, the “free” art you’ve been posting may not just vanish; it may become a liability.

Too Small to Matter? Think Again

Here’s the legal catch: infringement claims don’t scale by size. A podcaster with a Facebook page is just as liable as a network if the artwork copies protected content.

It’s easy to imagine a rival, competitor, or ex-producer spotting an AI-made graphic that looks “too much like” something else – and firing off a takedown. Once that happens, you’re judged not by intent but by what you published.

Unlike FCC guardrails for on-air speech, there’s no regulator to clarify. This is civil court. You versus the claimant – and the billable hours start immediately.

Even Elon Musk Just Got Burned

Neuralink – Elon Musk’s brain-computer startup – just lost its bid to trademark the words “Telepathy” and “Telekinesis.” Someone else filed first.

If Musk’s lawyers can’t secure simple branding terms, what chance does your station or company have if you wait until after launch to file your new show name? Timing isn’t just strategy; it’s survival.

The Playbook

Audit Your AI Use. Know which graphics and promos are AI-generated, and from what platform.
File Early. Register show names and logos before the launch hype.
Budget for Ownership. A real designer who assigns you copyright is safer than a bot with murky training data.

The Bottom Line

AI may feel like a shortcut, but in media law it’s a trapdoor. If Warner Bros. will defend Superman from an AI platform, they won’t ignore your podcast artwork if it looks too much like the Man of Steel.

Big or small, broadcaster or podcaster – if your AI Superman looks like theirs, you’re flying straight into Kryptonite.