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