Tag: TALKERS

Industry News

Top News/Talk Media Stories This Past Week (September 8-12, 2025)

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Here are the most talked about stories of the past week (9/8-12) on news/talk radio and related talk media according to TALKERS:

               Stories

1. Charlie Kirk Assassination
2. ICE Raids / Guard to Chicago Threats
3. SCOTUS ICE Ruling
4. The Epstein Files
5. The Economy
6. Lisa Cook Ruling
7. GA Hyundai Plant Raid / U.S.-South Korea Relations
8. Poland Intercepts Russian Drones
9. Israel Attacks Hamas in Qatar
10.France’s Government Implodes

              People

1. Donald Trump
2. Charlie Kirk
3. JB Pritzker / Brandon Johnson
4. Jeffrey Epstein
5. Scott Bessent
6. Jerome Powell / Lisa Cook
7. Lee Jae Myung
8. Vladimir Putin
9. Benjamin Netanyahu
10.Emmanuel Macron

To see the full TALKERS Stories, Topics, and People Charts, please click HERE.

Industry News

Top News/Talk Media Stories This Past Week (September 1-5, 2025)

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Here are the most talked about stories of the past week (9/1-5) on news/talk radio and related talk media according to TALKERS:

Stories

1. Trump Challenges Tariff Ruling
2. Judge Backs Harvard in Grants Case
3. Guard Troops in DC / Other Cities Protest
4. Epstein-Maxwell Victims Testify
5. Trump’s Health
6. Florida Ends Kids Vaccine Requirements
7. The Economy / Fed Policy
8. China Military Parade / Russia-China-India Economic Talks
9. RFK Jr Testimony
10.Russia-Ukraine War

People

1. Donald Trump
2. James Comer
3. Jeffrey Epstein-Ghislaine Maxwell
4. Muriel Bowser
5. Allison D. Burroughs
6. Karoline Leavitt
7. Gavin Newsom
8. Ron DeSantis
9. Xi Jinping / Vladimir Putin / Narendra Modi
10.RFK Jr.

To see the full TALKERS Stories, Topics, and People Charts, please click HERE.

Industry Views

Fair Use in 2025: The Courts Draw New Lines

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

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

Industry News

Top News/Talk Media Stories This Past Week (August 25 – 29, 2025)

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Here are the most talked about stories of the past week (8/25-29) on news/talk radio and related talk media according to TALKERS:

Stories

1. The Economy / Fed Policy / Trump-Cook Battle
2. Tariffs on India
3. Troops in DC / Union Station Takeover
4. Deadly Minneapolis School Shooting
5. Redistricting
6. CDC Director Firing / COVID Shots
7. ICE Raids / Abrego Garcia Case
8. Bolton Raid
9. Russia-Ukraine War / Israel’s Gaza Attacks
10.Kelce-Swift Engagement

People

1. Donald Trump
2. Jerome Powell / Lisa Cook
3. Muriel Bowser
4. Stephen Miller
5. Pam Bondi
6. Greg Abbott / Gavin Newsom
7. Susan Monarez
8. Kilmar Abrego Garcia
9. John Bolton
10. Travis Kelce-Taylor Swift

To see the full TALKERS Stories, Topics, and People Charts, please click HERE.

Industry Views

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

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

By Matthew B. Harrison

TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

imgNinety 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?”

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

Industry News

Top News/Talk Media Stories This Past Week (August 18 – 22, 2025)

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

Here are the most talked about stories of the past week (8/18-22) on news/talk radio and related talk media according to TALKERS:

Stories

1. Russia-Ukraine Negotiations
2. Texas & California Redistricting
3. The Economy/Fed Policy
4. Tariffs
5. Federal Takeover of DC
6. The Epstein Files
7. ICE Raids
8. Israel-Gaza War
9. Trump vs The Smithsonian
10.Trump Voting System Criticisms / Newsmax-Dominion Settlement

People

1. Donald Trump
2. Vladimir Putin
3. Volodymyr Zelensky
4. Greg Abbott
5. Gavin Newsom
6. Jerome Powell / Lisa Cook
7. Jeffrey Epstein / Ghislaine Maxwell
8. Kristi Noem
9. Pam Bondi
10.Benjamin Netanyahu

To see the full TALKERS Stories, Topics, and People Charts, please click HERE.

Industry Views

Could Your Own Podcast Become Your AI Competitor?

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

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

mattybharrisonImagine 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.

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 the Library Talks Back

By TALKERS | by TALKERS

2f8c1286 c8c3 4b72 ba11 091cec050fcd
By Matthew B. Harrison
TALKERS, VP/Associate Publisher
Harrison Legal Group, Senior Partner
Goodphone Communications, Executive Producer

imgImagine 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.

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.