- The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued the first of its Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) audit letters for 2023 to randomly selected
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: April 3 to April 7, 2023
- Since the February 24 hearing designation order (HDO) from the FCC’s Media Bureau referring questions about Standard General Broadcasting’s proposed
Using AI to Replicate the Voice of a Celebrity – Watch Out for Legal Issues Including Violating the Right of Publicity
Note from David Oxenford: Seth Resler of Jacobs Media yesterday wrote on his Connecting the Dots blog about the ease of synthesizing the voice of a celebrity, and the temptation to use that replicated voice in an on-air broadcast. Last week, in an article on policy issues raised by AI, we mentioned that some states have adopted laws that limit the use of synthesized media in political advertising. In Seth’s article, he quotes Belinda Scrimenti of my law firm pointing out some of the legal issues that arise from using a synthesized voice even in entertainment programming, and especially in commercials. Belinda has expanded on her thoughts and offers the following observations on the use of synthesized personalities on radio or TV.
The advent of artificial intelligence poses interesting and often challenging legal issues because the law is still “catching up” with the technology. Consider the impact of new AI platforms that can learn a person’s voice, then speak whatever text you submit to it in that person’s voice. If a user submits 60 seconds of Taylor Swift audio to the AI platform, the platform can use this sample to learn to “speak” as Taylor Swift, and the user can then have “her” say whatever the user wants.
While some states are considering or have adopted some restrictions on impersonation by AI, many existing legal concepts applied with traditional celebrity impersonation claims are already applicable to this kind of synthesized celebrity impersonation. Thus, if the use by a broadcaster of Taylor Swift’s voice (either taped and edited or impersonated by a human) would violate the right of publicity that is already found in the law of most states, the use of her AI voice would also violate these same rights. Continue Reading Using AI to Replicate the Voice of a Celebrity – Watch Out for Legal Issues Including Violating the Right of Publicity
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: March 27 to March 31, 2023
- The FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) to implement the Low Power Protection Act (“LPPA”), which was signed
April Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – License Renewals, EEO Reports, Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Rulemaking Comments Including FTC Comments on Noncompete Agreements, and More
April brings to an end the four-year license renewal cycle that began in 2019 with the filing of renewals by radio stations in the Washington DC area. Our monthly updates, like this one, will thus not be highlighting license renewal dates again until mid-2027. But there are always other regulatory dates which broadcasters need to note. There are EEO Public File reports due in April for certain states (as they are every other month), the requirement for all full-power broadcast stations to upload to their public file their Quarterly Issues Programs Lists, and there are a number of rulemaking comment deadlines of interest to broadcasters. So, let’s look at some of the important regulatory dates for broadcasters in April.
As April 1 is a Saturday, April 3 is the deadline by which television stations, LPTV stations, TV translators and Class A stations in Delaware and Pennsylvania must file their license renewal applications, bringing to a close the current TV license renewal cycle. Renewal applications must be accompanied by FCC Form 2100, Schedule 396 Broadcast EEO Program Report (except for LPFMs and TV translators). Stations filing for renewal of their license should make sure that all documents required to be uploaded to the station’s online public file are complete and were uploaded on time. Be sure to read the instructions for the license renewal application and consult with your advisors if you have questions, especially if you have noticed any discrepancies in your online public file or political file. Issues with the public file have repeatedly led to fines imposed on broadcasters during renewal cycles.Continue Reading April Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – License Renewals, EEO Reports, Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists, Rulemaking Comments Including FTC Comments on Noncompete Agreements, and More
Broadcasters Beware – April Fools Day Can Trigger FCC Concerns
Every year at about this time, we worry that radio stations may be tempted to run some big April Fools’ Day stunt. But, with the country seemingly on edge because of natural and human emergencies in the news almost every day, a prank that may seem funny to some could trigger concerns with others. As we do every year about this time, we need to play our role as attorneys and ruin any fun that you may be planning by repeating our reminder that broadcasters need to be careful with any on-air pranks, jokes or other on-air bits prepared especially for April 1. Particularly as the day falls on a Saturday this year, and less experienced personnel who may not be as familiar with legal concerns may be manning stations, a warning seems again to be appropriate. While a little fun is OK, remember that the FCC has a rule against on-air hoaxes, and there can be liability issues with false alerts that are run on a station. Issues like these can arise at any time, but a broadcaster’s temptation to go over the line is probably highest on April 1.
The FCC’s rule against broadcast hoaxes, Section 73.1217, prevents stations from running any information about a “crime or catastrophe” on the air, if the broadcaster (1) knows the information to be false, (2) it is reasonably foreseeable that the broadcast of the material will cause substantial public harm and (3) public harm is in fact caused. Public harm is defined as “direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.” If you air a program that fits within this definition and causes a public harm, you should expect to be fined by the FCC.Continue Reading Broadcasters Beware – April Fools Day Can Trigger FCC Concerns
This Week in Regulation for Broadcasters: March 13 to March 17, 2023
- On March 16, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) held an open meeting at which it voted to issue “6(b) orders”
Two Million Dollar Fine for Pirate Radio – Don’t Cross the Commission Again After You’ve Been Caught Once, Especially as More Enforcement Appears to be on the Way
This week, the FCC released two Notices of Apparent Liability proposing to impose big fines on two pirate radio operators. Using the enforcement tools – particularly the higher fines – authorized by the PIRATE Act passed by Congress in 2020, the FCC proposed a to impose a fine of $2,316,034 on one alleged operator of a pirate radio station in the New York City area, and a fine of $80,000 fine on another operator of a pirate station in Oregon. We’ve written in the past about the FCC sending warning letters to landowners and pirate radio operators threatening big fines if they don’t cease operations (or, for landowners, if they don’t force their tenants to cease illegal operations). But, as noted in the FCC’s Press Release, this is the first time since the adoption of the PIRATE Act that the FCC has gone beyond the warning phase to issue these notices of multimillion dollar “forfeitures” (fines) on pirate operators and, in the New York case, use the full force permitted by the law to levy the multimillion dollar fine. Theoretically, the alleged pirates could respond to the Notices and contest the fines, but the FCC’s decisions seem adamant that these operators should be paying a substantial penalty. It is probably no coincidence that these Notices were issued a little over a month after the FCC sent its annual report to Congress on its activities under the PIRATE Act, promising increased efforts to combat pirate radio in the new year.
The New York pirate appears particularly brazen, prompting the largest fine yet levied against a pirate radio operator. According to the Notice of Apparent Liability, two individuals have operated a pirate radio station in the New York borough of Queens for over a decade. In 2013, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau issued three Notices of Unauthorized Operation to the operators, warning them that their operations were illegal and needed to stop. In 2014, agents personally confronted one of the operators who admitted ownership of the equipment, and again told him to stop operating. When operations continued, a proposed fine of $20,000 was issued in 2015, but never paid or contested. In 2016, as operations had continued, Federal Marshalls seized the station’s equipment. Yet the pirate came back and continued operations – even using a website and social media to promote programs hosted by the two individuals named in this week’s Notice. The FCC emphasized that the repeated, ongoing nature of the violation even after multiple warnings and prior government action prompted its substantial fine. The PIRATE statute limits fines to $2,316,034 – otherwise, the FCC would have proposed a fine ten times larger, given the nature of the violation and the pirate’s apparent disregard of the FCC’s prior attempts to enforce the law.Continue Reading Two Million Dollar Fine for Pirate Radio – Don’t Cross the Commission Again After You’ve Been Caught Once, Especially as More Enforcement Appears to be on the Way
March Madness and Advertising: Use of NCAA Trademarks (2023 Update – Part 2)
Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s assembling of the rights to an array of trademarks associated with this month’s basketball tournament. Today, I will provide some examples of the activities that can bring unwanted NCAA attention to your advertisements or broadcasting of advertising, as well as one more issue that should be
March Madness and Advertising: Use of NCAA Trademarks (2023 Update – Part 1)
With Selection Sunday this weekend, the 2023 NCAA Collegiate Basketball Tournament is about to begin. As faithful readers of this blog know, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to be wary about potential claims arising from their use of terms and logos associated with the tournament.
NCAA Trademarks
The NCAA owns the well-known marks March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight,® and The Road to the Final Four® (with and without the word “The”), each of which is a federally registered trademark. The NCAA does not own “Sweet Sixteen” – someone else does – but it does have federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen® and NCAA Sweet 16®.
The NCAA also has federal registrations for some lesser-known marks, including March Mayhem®, March Is On®,Midnight Madness®, Selection Sunday®, 68 Teams, One Dream®, And Then There Were Four® and NCAA Fast Break®. (It also has a registration for SPRING MADNESS®in connectionwith its soccer tournaments.)
Some of these marks are used to promote the basketball tournament or the coverage of the tournament, while others are used on merchandise, such as t-shirts. The NCAA also uses (or licenses) variations on these marks without seeking registration, but it can claim common law rights in those marks, such as March Madness Live, March Madness Music Festival and Final Four Fan Fest.Continue Reading March Madness and Advertising: Use of NCAA Trademarks (2023 Update – Part 1)