Matthew B. Harrison – TALKERS magazine

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 Media Law, 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@HarrisonMediaLaw.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 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 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 Media Law, 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 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 News

Harrison “Close My Ears Tour” Tackles National Anxiety Issues

By TALKERS | November 13, 2025November 14, 2025 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 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

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 Media Law, 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 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

Are Your AI Logos Actually Kryptonite?

By TALKERS | September 8, 2025 by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Media Law, 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.

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

Just Because You Found It Online Doesn’t Mean You Can Use It

By TALKERS | August 1, 2025August 1, 2025 by TALKERS

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

A New Jersey radio station thought they were just being clever online. They scanned a photo from New Jersey Monthly, cropped out the photographer’s credit line, and posted it on Facebook – inviting listeners to edit and reshare it for fun. ying to engage listeners to interact with the station with more than just their ears.”

But that station, WKXW 101.5, ended up in federal court.

Photographer Peter Murphy sued for copyright infringement and removal of attribution. The Third Circuit ruled against the station – finding that the image was used without permission, credit removed, and the photographer’s ability to license his work damaged.

It wasn’t fair use. It was infringement.

Fair Use Won’t Save You from Getting Sued

Fair use isn’t a free pass – it’s a defense. That means someone’s already accused you of infringement, and now it’s on you to justify it.

Even when it works, fair use still costs time and money. In the WKXW case, the station used the entire photo, failed to transform it, and encouraged widespread online sharing. The court saw that as market harm – one of the most important fair use factors.

And don’t assume you’re safe just because it wasn’t part of the broadcast. Courts have made clear that even social media posts by broadcasters can undermine the value of the original and trigger liability.

Don’t Ignore It Just Because It Feels Small

In my own experience with clients fending off these kinds of claims, sometimes it’s obvious. Other times it’s a bluff. But even bogus claims can cost you if you don’t take them seriously from the beginning.

License It, Link to It, or Leave It

If you didn’t create it or license it, don’t assume it’s fair game. Look for content with clear reuse rights. Better yet – link to the source instead of copying it.

Because if a copyright holder comes after you, your intentions won’t matter. Only your rights will.

Industry Views

In the Age of Blogs, Podcasts, and Substack, Defamation Law is Asking: How Public is Too Public?

By TALKERS | July 25, 2025July 25, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Mark Walters didn’t expect to lose private-figure legal protections over something he never talked about – especially since the thing he never talked about never even happened. A nationally syndicated radio host and outspoken Second Amendment advocate, Walters is publicly known, but in a specific lane. He never discussed nonprofits, financial misconduct, or legal ethics. Yet when ChatGPT hallucinated a claim that he had embezzled from a charity, a Georgia court ruled he was a public figure – and dismissed his defamation suit.

The logic? Walters had a platform, a following, and a history of public commentary. That was enough. The court held that his general media presence elevated him to public-figure status, even though the allegedly defamatory statement had nothing to do with the subject matter of his actual work. wasn’t defamed about what he’s known for—but his visibility was used against him anyway.

The case didn’t just shut down a complaint. It opened a wider question: who qualifies as a public figure in the modern media era – and when does that designation apply to topics you never touched?

Why Public Figure Status Matters

Defamation law protects people from false, reputation-harming statements – but not equally. A private figure needs only to show that the speaker was negligent. A public figure, by contrast, must prove actual malice – that the speaker knew the statement was false or recklessly disregarded the truth.

This high standard, first articulated in New York Times v. Sullivan, was intended to protect freedom of speech and the press. But in the age of digital publishing and algorithmic reach, it’s increasingly used to deny protection to people who never thought they were stepping into the spotlight.

What Makes Someone a Public Figure?

Courts recognize two main categories:

– General-purpose public figures are household names – people famous across all topics and platforms.

– Limited-purpose public figures are individuals who have voluntarily entered public controversy or engaged in widespread public commentary on specific issues.

Here’s where the modern problem begins.

Thanks to blogs, newsletters, podcasts, and social media, it’s easier than ever to participate in public dialogue – and harder than ever to keep that participation confined to just one topic.

Post a viral thread on immigration?

Host a weekly podcast about school choice?

Weigh in on TikTok about local politics?

You may have just stepped into “limited-purpose public figure” territory – whether you intended to or not.

The Walters v. OpenAI Case – Now the Law

In Walters v. OpenAI, the court didn’t question whether the claim was false – only whether Walters could meet the public figure burden of proof. The court held that he could not. Despite the fact that he had never discussed the subject matter in question, his general visibility was enough to require that he prove actual malice. And he couldn’t.

The decision came with no trial, no settlement – just a dismissal. It now stands as legal precedent: having a public voice on one issue may cost you private-figure protections on others.

Microphone, Meet Microscope

This shift affects:

Independent journalists

– Podcast hosts

– Niche content creators

– Local activists with modest but vocal platforms

They may not feel “public,” but courts increasingly view them that way. And once that threshold is crossed, the burden in a defamation case becomes dramatically harder to meet.

he more you speak publicly—even on one topic—the more legally exposed you are everywhere else.

That wasn’t the intent of Sullivan. But in today’s fragmented, always-on media culture, visibility leaks- and so do legal thresholds.

Final Takeaway

You don’t need to be famous to be “public.” You just need to be findable.

Whether you’re behind a mic, a blog, or a camera, your platform may elevate you into public figure status – and bring defamation law’s toughest burdens with it. If you’re defamed, you’ll have to prove the speaker acted with knowing falsehood. If you’re doing the speaking, your target’s legal classification could determine how costly a misstep becomes.

In 2025, every microphone is also a microscope. Know what the law sees before you go live.

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

The Soundbite Trap: How Editing in Radio and Podcasting Creates Legal Risk

By TALKERS | July 16, 2025 by TALKERS

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

In radio and podcasting, editing isn’t just technical – it shapes narratives and influences audiences. Whether trimming dead air, tightening a guest’s comment, or pulling a clip for social media, every cut leaves an impression.

But here’s the legal reality: editing also creates risk.

For FCC-regulated broadcasters, that risk isn’t about content violations. The FCC polices indecency, licensing, and political fairness – not whether your edit changes a guest’s meaning.

For podcasters and online creators, the misconception is even riskier. Just because you’re not on terrestrial radio doesn’t mean you’re free from scrutiny. Defamation, false light, and misrepresentation laws apply to everyone — whether you broadcast on a 50,000-watt signal or a free podcast platform.

At the end of the day, it’s not the FCC that will hold you accountable for your edits. It’s a judge.

1. Alex Jones and the $1 Billion Lesson

Alex Jones became infamous for promoting conspiracy theories on Infowars, especially his repeated claim that the Sandy Hook shooting was a hoax – supported by selectively aired clips and distorted facts.

The result? Nearly $1 billion in defamation verdicts after lawsuits from victims’ families.

Takeaway: You can’t hide behind “just asking questions” or “it was my guest’s opinion.” If your platform publishes it – over the airwaves or online – you’re legally responsible for the content, including how it’s edited or framed.

2. Katie Couric and the Gun Rights Group Edit

In “Under the Gun,” filmmakers inserted an eight-second pause after Katie Couric asked a tough question, making it seem like a gun rights group was stumped. In reality, they had answered immediately.

The group sued for defamation. The case was dismissed, but reputations took a hit.

Takeaway: Even subtle edits – like manufactured pauses – can distort meaning and expose creators to risk.

3. FOX News and the Dominion Settlement

FOX News paid $787 million to Dominion Voting Systems after airing content suggesting election fraud – often based on selectively edited interviews and unsupported claims.

Though FOX is (among other things) a cable network, the impact shook the media world. Broadcasters reassessed risks, host contracts, and editorial practices.

Takeaway: Major networks aren’t the only ones at risk. Radio hosts and podcasters who echo misleading narratives may face similar legal consequences.

4. The Serial Podcast and the Power of Editing

“Serial” captivated millions by exploring Adnan Syed’s murder conviction. While no lawsuit followed, critics argued the producers presented facts selectively to build a certain narrative.

Takeaway: Even without a lawsuit, editing shapes public perception. Misleading edits may not land you in court but can damage trust and invite scrutiny.

Whether you’re behind a radio microphone or a podcast mic, your editing decisions carry weight – and legal consequence.

The FCC might care if you drop an indecent word on air, but they won’t be the ones suing you when a guest claims you twisted their words. That’s civil law, where defamation, false light, and misrepresentation have no broadcast exemption.

There’s one set of rules for editing that every content creator lives by – and they’re written in the civil courts, not the FCC code.

Edit with care.

Industry Views

You Cut for Time. They Cut You a Lawsuit.

By TALKERS | July 11, 2025 by TALKERS

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

Let’s discuss how CBS’s $16 million settlement became a warning shot for every talk host, editor, and content creator with a mic.

When CBS settled a lawsuit with Donald Trump for $16 million over a selectively edited “60 Minutes” interview with Kamala Harris, it wasn’t about guilt. It was about leverage. The lawsuit happened to coincide with Paramount’s FCC merger review – coincidentally, right when regulatory pressure was needed the most.

For broadcasters and digital creators alike, the message is clear: even lawful edits can become political weapons. If you shape content, you’re a target. And the courts aren’t the only battleground. Public outrage, regulatory scrutiny, and advertiser anxiety all shape the cost of controversy.

For Broadcasters: Every Cut Counts

Editing always alters reality. That doesn’t make it wrong – but it makes it risky. Even good-faith trims for time or tone can be reframed as distortion. What matters isn’t just what you cut, but whether you can defend it.

Case in Point: “60 Minutes” vs. DeSantis

CBS was accused of misleading edits in a 2021 vaccine rollout story. They published full transcripts and stood their ground. No apology, no payout.

Takeaways:

— Archive raw footage.
— Log your editorial decisions.
— Be ready to explain your process with clarity and conviction.

For Digital Creators: You’re Not as Untouchable as You Think

Section 230 might protect platforms, but it doesn’t shield you from smear campaigns, takedowns, or frivolous lawsuits. Editing with commentary or critique is often fair use – but that doesn’t stop bad-faith actors from flipping the narrative.

Case in Point: “Decoding Fox News”

Jules Terpak’s critique series survived coordinated attacks thanks to clear sourcing, transparency, and credibility built ahead of time.

Takeaways:

— Know your rights, but also your vulnerabilities.
— Keep receipts.
— Build audience trust before someone tries to burn it down.

The Real Risk Isn’t the Edit – It’s the Optics

Trump didn’t need to win the lawsuit. He just needed the headlines – and CBS needed their merger. Settlements aren’t always about truth. They’re about timing.

So protect yourself:

— Document your work.
— Develop internal standards.
— Don’t panic under pressure – prepare for it.

Because in an era where outrage spreads faster than facts, defending the integrity of your edit isn’t optional. It’s essential.

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

Mark Walters v. OpenAI: A Landmark Case for Spoken Word Media

By TALKERS | June 3, 2025June 3, 2025 by TALKERS

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

When Georgia-based nationally syndicated radio personality, and Second Amendment advocate Mark Walters (longtime host of “Armed American Radio”) learned that ChatGPT had falsely claimed he was involved in a criminal embezzlement scheme, he did what few in the media world have dared to do. Walters stood up when others were silent, and took on an incredibly powerful tech company, one of the biggest in the world, in a court of law.

Taking the Fight to Big Tech

Walters, by filing suit against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT, become the first person in the United States to test the boundaries of defamation law in the age of generative artificial intelligence.

His case was not simply about clearing his name. It was about drawing a line. Can artificial intelligence generate and distribute false and damaging information about a real person without any legal accountability?

While the court ultimately ruled in OpenAI’s favor on specific legal procedure concerns, the impact of this case is far from finished. Walters’ lawsuit broke new ground in several important ways:

— It was the first known defamation lawsuit filed against an AI developer based on content generated by an AI system.
— It brought into the open critical questions about responsibility, accuracy, and liability when AI systems are used to produce statements that sound human but carry no editorial oversight.
— It continued to add fuel to the conversation of the effectiveness of “use at your own risk” disclaimers when there is real world reputational damage hanging in the balance.

Implications for the Radio and Podcasting Community

For those spoken-word creators, regardless of platform on terrestrial, satellite, or the open internet, this case is a wake-up call, your canary in a coal mine. Many shows rely on AI tools for research, summaries, voice generation, or even show scripts. But what happens when those tools get it wrong? (Other than being embarrassed, and in some cases fined or terminated) And worse, what happens when those errors affect real people?

The legal system, as has been often written about, is still playing catch-up. Although the court ruled that the fabricated ChatGPT statement lacked the necessary elements of defamation under Georgia law, including provable harm and demonstrable fault, the decision highlighted how unprepared current frameworks are for this fast-moving, voice-driven digital landscape.

Where the Industry Goes from Here

Walters’ experience points to the urgent need for new protection and clearer guidelines:

— Creators deserve assurance that the tools they use are built with accountability in mind. This would extend to copyright infringement and to defamation.
— Developers must be more transparent about how their systems operate and the risks they create. This would identify bias and attempt to counteract it.
— Policymakers need to bring clarity to who bears responsibility when software, not a person, becomes the speaker.

A Case That Signals a Larger Reckoning

Mark Walters may not have won this round in court, but his decision to take on a tech giant helped illuminate how quickly generative AI can create legal, ethical, and reputational risks for anyone with a public presence. For those of us working in media, especially in formats built on trust, voice, and credibility, his case should not be ignored.

“This wasn’t about money. This was about the truth,” Walters tells TALKERS. “If we don’t draw a line now, there may not be one left to draw.”

To listen to a longform interview with Mark Walters conducted by TALKERS publisher Michael Harrison, please click here

Media attorney, Matthew B. Harrison is VP/Associate Publisher at TALKERS; Senior Partner at Harrison Media Law; and Executive Producer at Goodphone Communications. He is available for private consultation and media industry contract representation. He can be reached by phone at 724-484-3529 or email at matthew@harrisonmedialaw.com. He teaches “Legal Issues in Digital Media” and serves as a regular contributor to industry discussions on fair use, AI, and free expression.

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

Industry Views

Fair Use or Foul Play? Lessons from “Equals Three”

By TALKERS | January 29, 2025January 29, 2025 by TALKERS

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

In the ever-evolving landscape of digital media, creators often walk a fine line between inspiration and infringement. The 2015 case of “Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc.” offers a cautionary tale for anyone producing reaction videos or commentary-based content: fair use is not a free pass, and transformation is key.

The Case at a Glance

“Equals Three,” a popular YouTube series, built its reputation on humorously reacting to viral videos. The show used 10-30 second clips of these videos, pausing periodically for the host to add jokes and reactions. Jukin Media, which owns the rights to many viral clips, sued for copyright infringement, arguing the use was not protected under fair use.

The court sided with Jukin Media, ruling that “Equals Three’s” use was not sufficiently transformative. While the show added humor and commentary, it primarily repackaged the original content for entertainment without enough new meaning.

What This Means for You

Fair use requires creators to add something new, such as critique or analysis. Simply reacting to content with jokes or minimal commentary isn’t enough. Use only what’s necessary and ensure your work doesn’t substitute for the original.

Additionally, fair use considers market impact. If your content diminishes the value of the original by serving as a substitute, it’s unlikely to qualify.

Why This Matters

Reaction videos and commentary are staples of digital media, but they come with risks. The “Equals Three” case highlights the need for meaningful transformation. By focusing on critique, analysis, or education, creators can navigate fair use confidently while respecting intellectual property rights.

Media attorney, Matthew B. Harrison is VP/associate publisher, TALKERS; Senior Partner, Harrison Media Law; and executive producer, Goodphone Communications. He is available for private consultation and media industry contract representation. He can be reached by phone at 724.484.3529 or email at matthew@harrisonmedialaw.com

Industry Views

FAIR USE: What Constitutes “Publishing” or a “Publication” on Today’s Media Playing Field?

By TALKERS | November 6, 2024November 6, 2024 by TALKERS

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

As the practice of “clip jockeying” becomes an increasingly ubiquitous and taken-for-granted technique in modern audio and video talk media, an understanding of the legal concept “fair use” is vital to the safety and survival of practitioners and their platforms.

When assessing fair use in audio media, courts closely examine the “nature of the copyrighted work,” especially focusing on whether the work is factual or creative, and published or unpublished. Factual content, such as news reports or data, is more likely to be seen as fair use material, as it’s in the public interest to keep factual information accessible. Creative works, like music, fiction, or original performances, often enjoy stronger protection because they embody the creator’s unique expression and should be compensated accordingly.

Unpublished interviews or speeches. When audio content includes unpublished material – such as a speech or interview that hasn’t been publicly released – courts typically approach it with heightened caution. For example, if a podcast includes clips from an unpublished interview with a politician to enhance commentary, courts might scrutinize this more heavily than they would a published work, as the speaker retains significant control over whether and how the content reaches the public.

Case study insight: Salinger v. Random House (1987). The landmark case Salinger v. Random House highlighted how unpublished works generally receive stronger copyright protection. In this case, the use of unpublished letters in a biography was ruled as infringing, emphasizing that unpublished materials hold a unique status in copyright law. If a podcaster today were to use a similarly unpublished interview with a public figure without significant commentary or transformation, they might face greater legal challenges.

Redefining “published” in the digital era. With digital platforms, the meaning of “published” is evolving. Traditionally, a work was deemed “published” when made available for sale, license, or public distribution. Now, sharing content online, even in a limited way – such as within a closed social media group or private online forum – raises questions about whether the content should be considered published. Courts are increasingly aware that limited digital sharing doesn’t necessarily reduce a work’s unpublished protections, but extensive online distribution might.

Modern considerations of online sharing. Courts today analyze factors like control over access and the sharing platform’s nature. For instance, an audio clip shared in a restricted forum might retain its unpublished protections, while a widely posted clip could lose some of those protections. Additionally, when creators post content on platforms like Instagram or YouTube before officially “publishing” it elsewhere, courts may take the creator’s intent and distribution scope into account when determining the content’s legal status.

As online platforms reshape how creators distribute their work, they also impact fair use, pushing courts to reinterpret what it means for a work to be “published.” This evolving understanding means that copyright protections depend not only on whether a work is accessible but also on the level of control over its distribution, especially for audio content.

Industry News

TALKERS Launching YouTube Channel

By TALKERS | June 28, 2024June 28, 2024 by TALKERS

TALKERS is adding a YouTube channel to its array of talk media platforms. The venue – titled Talkers Media Channel – will initially provide a base for the organization’s conference videos and a platform for its founder Michael Harrison’s reimagined video iteration of his pioneering audio podcast, “Up Close and Far Out.” Videos from the recently held TALKERS 2024: Radio and Beyond will begin being posted after the July 4^th holiday. “Up Close and Far Out with Michael Harrison” soft launches today with a conversation between Harrison and radio tech star Kim Komando examining the sociological, biological, and theological implications of artificial intelligence. The Harrison talk show will take several forms including one-on-one interviews, panel discussions and solo commentaries. Harrison and his guests will sometimes appear on camera and on other occasions just be voices enhanced by stunning visuals and music provided by the channel’s producer TALKERS VP/associate publisher, Matthew B. Harrison. The series will be targeted to an audience Harrison describes as “pop culture aficionados, political junkies, media enthusiasts, fans of science, followers of technology and the philosophically curious.” The Harrisons plan to focus heavily upon a stable of guests composed of professionals from the world of talk media covered by TALKERS magazine but stretch beyond that core as well. After it is fully up and running, plans are in place to expand the channel’s menu to include shows and properties produced by an array of content providers. To visit the debut installment of “Up Close and Far Out with Michael Harrison,” please click here.

Industry News

Michael Harrison Embarks Upon “Obsolete Slobs” Media Tour in Support of Provocative New Music Video

By TALKERS | June 27, 2024June 27, 2024 by TALKERS

Now that the TALKERS 2024: Radio and Beyond conference is in the history books, TALKERS founder (and Gunhill Road member) Michael Harrison has embarked upon what is being called the Summer of ‘24 “Obsolete Slobs” media tour in support of the perennial rock group’s latest music video endeavor. Gunhill Road, the ensemble that has been creating multi-genre rock and pop music spanning more than five decades, has released a breathtaking new song and video titled, “Artificial Intelligence (No Robots Were Injured in the Production of this Song).” The piece – which is an unapologetic examination of the potential consequences AI poses to current human civilization – is an advance release from the band’s forthcoming fifth album. Gunhill Road has developed a unique niche in recent years attracting hundreds of thousands of internet followers powered, in large part, by the attention and airplay given it on talk radio. New songs by the group typically debut on multiple radio talk shows sparking conversation about today’s pressing topics of news and social concern. The compositions feature clever, biting lyrics delivered in a highly musical and original way. The band consists of co-founding member/pianist/vocalist/songwriter Steve Goldrich, longtime guitarist/vocalist/songwriter Paul Reisch, noted Broadway theater instrumentalist/guitarist/vocalist/songwriter Brian Koonin, and vocalist/songwriter Michael Harrison. (Harrison co-wrote this song and performs lead vocals.) This production features a special guest vocal appearance by recording artist Bibi Farber, daughter of the late talk radio pioneer, Barry Farber. The visually stunning video for “Artificial Intelligence (No Robots Were Injured in the Production of this Song)” which, ironically, employs generative AI for many of its remarkable images, was produced by Matthew B. Harrison. The song, an infectious rocker marked by driving guitars, riveting keyboards, soaring horns and a multi-layered group chorus depicts the dangers human civilization faces in an increasingly uncertain environment marked by the rising corruption of deep fakes and manipulative algorithms that threaten elections and question the very premise of “self-evident” truths. It ultimately asks the question, “What does it mean to be human?” Check out the video here. To arrange a talk media interview with Michael Harrison to discuss the song and its implications, email info@talkers.com or call 413-565-5413.

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

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