Tag: OpenAI

Industry Views

When AI Speaks, Who’s Accountable?

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

img

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

When Your Voice Becomes the Product

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

img

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

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

Now the fight is shifting toward something more personal.

The voice itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more….

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

That defense may sound familiar to media professionals.

“We got it from somebody else.”

Legally, that is often not enough.

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

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

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

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

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

They do not.

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

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

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

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

Or simply old-fashioned commercial exploitation wearing futuristic clothing.

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

Matthew B. Harrison is a media and intellectual property attorney who advises radio hosts, content creators, and creative entrepreneurs. He has written extensively on fair use, AI law, and the future of digital rights. Reach him at Matthew@HarrisonLegalGroup.com or read more at TALKERS.com.

Industry Views

Fair Use in 2025: The Courts Draw New Lines

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

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

imgImagine 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.

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

Industry Views

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

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

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

imgIn 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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

OpenAI Loses Motion to Dismiss in Talk Host Defamation Case

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Artificial Intelligence firm OpenAI was denied its Motion to Dismiss the defamation suit filed against it by talk show host Mark Walters, who hosts radio programs produced by his CCW Broadcast Media company. Walters claims the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT by journalist Fred Riehl that created contentim stating the Walters was accused of embezzling funds from the Second Amendment Foundation defamed him. No such accusation ever actually took place. In its Motion to Dismiss, Open AI argued several points, including that Georgia is not the proper jurisdiction, but it summarized its argument that Walters’ claims didn’t meet the burden of defamation when it said, “Even more fundamentally, Riehl’s use of ChatGPT did not cause a ‘publication’ of the outputs. OpenAI’s Terms of Use make clear that ChatGPT is a tool that assists the user in the writing or creation of draft content and that the user owns the content they generate with ChatGPT. Riehl agreed to abide by these Terms of Use, including the requirement that users ‘verify’ and ‘take ultimate responsibility for the content being published.’ As a matter of law, this creation of draft content for the user’s internal benefit is not ‘publication.’”

Industry News

Yesterday’s (11/21) Top News/Talk Media Stories

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

The Israel-Hamas war and the negotiations for the release of the hostages; protests and anti-Semitism; Elon Musk sues Media Matters over content-related advertiser boycott of X; former President Donald Trump’s legal battles; the 2024 presidential race; JFK assassination anniversary; the Thanksgiving holiday weekend; and the firing and re-hiring of Sam Altman at OpenAI were some of the most-talked-about stories in news/talk media yesterday, according to ongoing research from TALKERS magazine.

Industry News

Yesterday’s (11/20) Top News/Talk Media Stories

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

The negotiations with Hamas over release of the hostages; Elon Musk sues Media Matters over its report on X content that’s caused advertisers to leave the social media platform; OpenAI staff threatens mass exit in wake of Sam Altman ouster; President Joe Biden turns 81; a federal appeals court rules only the U.S. AG can enforce section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; the Thanksgiving holiday and the forecast that could affect travel; former President Donald Trump’s legal battles; the 2024 presidential race; and the Supreme Court rejects Derek Chauvin’s appeal of his conviction in the death of George Floyd were some of the most-talked-about stories in news/talk media yesterday, according to ongoing research from TALKERS magazine.

Industry News

OpenAI Seeks Dismissal of Defamation Suit

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Artificial Intelligence firm OpenAI has filed a Motion to Dismiss the defamation suit filed against it by talk show host Mark Walters, who hosts radio programs produced by his CCW Broadcast Media company. TALKERS reported the suit by Walters back on June 9 in which Walters claims the use of OpenAI’s ChatGPT by journalist Fred Riehl that created content stating the Walters was accused of embezzling funds from the Secondim Amendment Foundation defamed him. No such accusation ever actually took place. In its Motion to Dismiss, Open AI argues several points, including that Georgia is not the proper jurisdiction, but it summarizes its argument that Walters’ claims don’t meet the burden of defamation when it says, “Even more fundamentally, Riehl’s use of ChatGPT did not cause a ‘publication’ of the outputs. OpenAI’s Terms of Use make clear that ChatGPT is a tool that assists the user in the writing or creation of draft content and that the user owns the content they generate with ChatGPT. Riehl agreed to abide by these Terms of Use, including the requirement that users ‘verify’ and ‘take ultimate responsibility for the content being published.’ As a matter of law, this creation of draft content for the user’s internal benefit is not ‘publication.’”

Industry News

Radio Host Mark Walters Suing OpenAI for Defamation

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Talk host Mark Walters, who produces and hosts Second Amendment-themed radio programs via his CCW Broadcast Media company, is suing OpenAI in a Georgia Superior Court claiming that OpenAI’s ChatGPT created a false case alleging that Walters embezzled funds from theim Second Amendment Foundation. The complaint states that journalist Fred Riehl was researching the case of The Second Amendment Foundation v. Robert Ferguson and asked ChatGPT to provide a summary of that complaint and received one that stated the suit’s plaintiff is Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb who accuses Walters as treasurer and chief financial officer of embezzling funds. Walters says, and Gottlieb confirms, that he didn’t serve in either position and didn’t steal anything. In the AI world, false text from services like ChatGPT are called “hallucinations.” As with any defamation case, Walters will have to prove he’s suffered damages, but this case will be interesting to watch as it appears to be the first such legal case involving the work of AI. Read the New York Post’s story here.