When One Clip Cuts Two Ways: How Copyright and Defamation Risks Collide
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.
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.
representative survey of over 4,000 people “identifies a significant identity crisis driven by the convergence of audio-only content and video formats popularized by platforms like YouTube and Spotify.” It shows: 1) 72% of Americans 12+ consider recordings of people discussing any topic on YouTube that are also available as audio-only shows elsewhere to be a podcast; 2) Advertisers face significant barriers to investment due to inconsistent standards, fragmented reporting, and unclear attribution; and 3) A clear, shared definition and interoperable measurement are urgently needed to realize podcasting’s full economic potential. Regarding defining podcasts, they propose new working definitions as follows: Podcast (noun): “An on-demand audio-driven program featuring episodic content across wide-ranging themes and formats. Traditionally delivered via open RSS and conversational in nature, it can include platform-based distribution and is commonly supplemented by video.” And Video Podcast (noun): “An episodic, on-demand program centered on spoken-word content, where synchronized visuals meaningfully shape the experience.” 
Salguero) that will drop every Tuesday and Friday during the NFL season. Outkick founder Clay Travis states, “Donovan McNabb is an NFL legend who I always enjoyed watching, except when he played against the Titans. I’m ecstatic to have him as a teammate now and he will be a great addition to OutKick, where we are continuing to build a unique home for the most insightful personalities in sports media who are free to speak their minds.”
His hall-of-fame career and love for the game are evident to anyone who has ever followed him. OutKick is and will always be the strongest proponent for smart, original, funny and authentic voices in all of sports. He’s a perfect fit for the brand and I’m thrilled to welcome him to our team.” Outkick also reports that its January 2023 digital performance, where the platform saw 311% growth year-over-year in unique visitors, marked the most growth over 2021 among its competitive set. In the fourth quarter of 2022, the platform attracted 9.1 million multi-platform average unique visitors, up 235% from the fourth quarter of the prior year, according to Comscore.