Television

Subscribe to Television via RSS

With April showers come routine regulatory dates for broadcasters, including the requirement for posting Quarterly Issues/Programs Lists to the Online Public Inspection Files of all full-power radio and TV stations, and EEO Public File Reports for stations in a number of states.  Among the other dates in April is the reply comment deadline in the…

Every year at about this time, with April Fools’ Day right around the corner, 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 the day.  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.  This year, the warning takes on new urgency, as the Chairman of the FCC has placed renewed emphasis on broadcast stations serving the public interest, and specifically citing the hoax rule as one that stations should be particularly cognizant to avoid license renewal issues.  While some of these warnings came in the context of broadcasts not covered by traditional interpretations of the hoax rule, these warnings have nevertheless given more publicity to the existence of this rule. 

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 With April Fools Day Almost Upon Us, Broadcasters Beware of the FCC Hoax Rule

The unusual story of the sale of TEGNA Inc. has seemingly (more on that below) come to an end after a four-year FCC review process, encompassing two attempted purchases, two administrative actions involving multiple rule waivers and novel questions of law, but no rulings by the Commissioners themselves. On Thursday, the FCC’s Media Bureau issued an order approving the transfer of control of the company to Nexstar Media and the deal was closed by the parties that same day.  Today, we look back at the unusual actions leading to the sale of TEGNA and at what last week’s approval may preview as to major changes ahead for the broadcast industry .

The unusual nature of the sale of TEGNA did not start with last week’s decision but instead began in 2022 when TEGNA first announced its plan to be acquired by Standard General.  After an application seeking approval for that sale was filed, objections were submitted from labor organizations, public interest groups, and representatives from the multichannel video provider community.  Despite divestiture plans to bring Standard General into compliance with the FCC’s television ownership rules, in 2023, the FCC’s Media Bureau, after a full year of consideration, decided that it could not reach a decision on the case, but that the case had to be reviewed by an FCC Administrative Law Judge to hold a hearing to decide two issues – neither of which had ever been the source for the rejection of a broadcast sale in the past. Continue Reading FCC Media Bureau Approves Nexstar’s Acquisition of TEGNA – What Does It Mean for Consideration of the Broadcast Ownership Rules? 

…

This past weekend, we saw an ad posted on YouTube attacking Democratic Senatorial candidate James Talarico – using words that were apparently from his own tweets, commenting on a number of social issues.  What made the ad notable was that the words from the tweets were not just displayed on the screen or read by some anonymous announcer, but instead they were stitched together and read in what was seemingly Talarico’s own voice accompanied by a very convincing AI image of Talarico himself, and interjections were included where his AI image said approvingly things about the tweets like “I remember this one” and “so true.”   It is only apparent that the ad was not an actual recording of Talarico delivering the message by a small disclaimer in one corner of the ad labeling it “AI Generated.”  The ad is a very convincing portrayal of Talarico, and we expect similar ads will show up during the course of the current election cycle.  Broadcasters and all other media companies need to be ready to deal with ads like these and comply with all legal obligations that apply to such advertising.

We have written before about the efforts during the last administration by the FCC, the Federal Election Commission (see our note here and our article here), and by Congress to regulate the use of AI in political ads on a national level.  Those efforts did not lead to national rules on such uses.  However, the majority of states have adopted some rules for the use of AI in political ads.  For media companies, the biggest issue is that these rules are not uniform but instead impose different obligations to avoid legal liability.

We last wrote extensively about the state laws affecting the use of artificial intelligence in political ads about two years ago, when only 11 states had adopted such rules.  Since then, more than 20 other states have adopted rules – and the obligations they impose are all over the board.  Some states (like Minnesota) make it illegal to use AI in political ads to portray a candidate doing something that they did not actually do unless the candidate consents.  Most do not go that far but instead require some form of disclosure (like that in the anti-Tallarico ad, except that in many states, the required text for the disclosures is far more extensive, though those disclosure obligations are not uniform and, in a few states, the  disclosure requirements are inconsistent in the state’s own criminal and civil statutes). Continue Reading AI in Political Attack Ads – Watch State Laws on Deep Fakes and Synthetic Media in Political Content

Yesterday, I wrote about the history of the NCAA’s asserting the rights to an array of trademarks associated with this month’s college basketball tournaments.  Today, I will provide some examples of the activities that can bring unwanted NCAA attention to your promotions or advertising, as well as an increasingly important development that should be considered when considering whether to accept advertising.

Activities that May Result in a Demand Letter from the NCAA

The NCAA acknowledges that media entities can sell advertising that accompanies the entity’s coverage of the NCAA championships.  However, similar to my discussion in January on the use of Super Bowl trademarks (see here) and my 2024 discussion on the use of Olympics trademarks (see here), unless authorized by the NCAA, any of the following activities may result in a cease and desist demand:

  • accepting advertising that refers to the NCAA®, the NCAA Basketball Tournament, March Madness®, The Big Dance®, Final Four®, Elite Eight® or any other NCAA trademark or logo.  (The NCAA has posted a list of its trademarks here.)
    • Example: An ad from a retailer with the headline, “Buy A New Big Screen TV in Time to Watch March Madness.”  Presumably, to avoid this issue, some advertisers have used “The Big Game” or “It’s Tournament Time!”
  • local programming that uses any NCAA trademark as part of its name.
    • Example: A locally produced program previewing the tournament called “The Big Dance: Pick a Winning Bracket.”
  • selling the right to sponsor the overall coverage by a broadcaster, website or print publication of the tournament.
    • Example: During the sports segment of the local news, introducing the section of the report on tournament developments as “March Madness, brought to you by [name of advertiser].”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that include any NCAA trademark in its name. (see here)
    • Example: “The Final Four Giveaway.”
  • sweepstakes or giveaways that offer tickets to a tournament game as a prize.
    • Example: even if the sweepstakes name is not a problem, offering game tickets as a prize will raise an objection by the NCAA due to language on the tickets prohibiting their use for such purposes.
  • events or parties that use any NCAA trademark to attract guests.
    • Example: a radio station sponsors a happy hour where fans can watch a tournament game, with any NCAA marks that are prominently placed on signage.
  • advertising that wishes or congratulates a team, or its coach or players, on success in the tournament.
    • Example: “[Advertiser name] wishes [Name of Coach] and the 2022 [Name of Team] success in the NCAA tournament!”

There is a common pitfall that is unique to the NCAA, namely, basketball: tournament brackets used by advertisers, in newspapers or other media, or office pools where participants predict the winners of each game in advance of the tournament.  The NCAA’s position (see here) is that the unauthorized placement of advertising within an NCAA bracket and corporate sponsorship of a tournament bracket is misleading and constitutes an infringement of its intellectual property rights.   Accordingly, it says that any advertising should be outside of the bracket space and should clearly indicate that the advertiser or its goods or services are not sponsored by, approved by, or otherwise associated with the NCAA or its championship tournament.Continue Reading It’s March … Time for Madness!:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2026 Update – Part II

Each year, as the NCAA basketball tournaments get underway, my colleague Mitch Stabbe highlights the trademark issues that can arise from uses of the well-known words and phrases associated with the games in advertising, promotions, and other media coverage. Here is Part I of his review. Look for Part II tomorrow.

March is certainly a busy month for sports.  The professional basketball and hockey leagues are getting close to their playoffs.  Baseball is in the midst of Spring Training.  NFL teams are signing free agents.  And, of course, the NCAA College Basketball Tournaments will take place over the course of the month.

This is my eleventh annual column for the Broadcast Law Blog on the subject of the potential pitfalls to broadcasters in using the NCAA’s FINAL FOUR and other trademarks or accepting advertising that use the marks.  There continue to be changes in college sports, particularly in the area of paying student athletes for the use of Name, Image, Likeness (NIL) rights and teams changing conferences .  However, the NCAA’s hard line against unauthorized uses of FINAL FOUR or its other marks has not changed, including at least one action that took place just a few weeks ago..

That said, it is clear that the value of the NCAA’s basketball tournament rights has, however, greatly changed, which helps explain the enduring efforts to challenge unauthorized uses of its marks.  Thus, broadcasters, publishers and other businesses need to continue 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®, Final Four®, Final 4®, Women’s Final Four®, Elite Eight®, Women’s Elite Eight®, Road to the Final Four® 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.  However, the NCAA has a license to use the mark and has federal registrations for NCAA Sweet Sixteen®and NCAA Sweet 16®.Continue Reading It’s March … Time for Madness!:  Risks of Using or Accepting or Engaging in Advertising or Promotions that Use FINAL FOUR or Other NCAA Trademarks:  2026 Update – Part I

  • The FCC’s Media Bureau issued a Public Notice seeking comment on how changes in the sports programming marketplace have impacted
…