52 THE US-ISRAEL | Legal Review 2025/26 Trusted external advisors will play the biggest role in helping us anticipate regulatory trends, interpret new guidance, and design scalable compliance strategies across jurisdictions. Their insight is critical not only for responding quickly to new rules, but also for shaping our growth roadmap so that legal considerations are integrated from the outset rather than addressed retroactively.” We also spoke with Noa Rosenberg Segalovitz Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO) and Chief Legal Officer (CLO) at Lightricks, a fast-growing Israeli creative-tech company with millions of users worldwide. As Lightricks’ tools increasingly rely on AI to help users create and share content, what are the hardest questions you face around ownership, fairness, and responsibility, and how do specialist external lawyers help you stay ahead? Noa explains: As an AI-native creative technology company with millions of global users, the most complex legal questions we face sit at the intersection of innovation, user empowerment, and accountability. Across our enterprise and API frameworks, the LTX Model and related technology remain exclusively owned by Lightricks. Customers receive a defined, limited license, subject those use restrictions fundamental to protecting the integrity of the technology and ensuring long-term sustainability. At the same time, as between LTX and the customer, ownership of Input and Output is allocated to the customer, to the extent permitted by law. One of the hardest questions in AI is the allocation of responsibility for Input, Output, and downstream use. Our agreements are explicit; customers control and are responsible for Inputs and must ensure they have all necessary rights and consents. Similarly, responsibility for use of Outputs, including compliance with law and third-party rights, rests with the customer. We require customers to implement appropriate governance mechanisms where necessary. Our Acceptable Use Policy operationalizes fairness and responsible deployment at the product level. It prohibits harmful use cases, such as biometric identification misuse, exploitation of minors, hateful conduct, misinformation, and unlawful activity. We also explicitly require compliance with AI-specific regulatory regimes where applicable and clarify that customers are responsible for ensuring their deployment meets such requirements. This anticipates the potential increasing formalization of AI regulation globally. Specialist external counsel are critical not only for interpretation of emerging regulation but for stresstesting our approach before launch. The objective is not merely compliance, but strategic positioning, anticipating how a regulator or court would assess a product feature two years from now, not two months from now. For a creative-tech company operating at scale, that forwardlooking contractual infrastructure is as important as the technology itself. What legal issues keep you most alert today, particularly around IP, user-generated content, and AI features, and how have expectations from users or regulators shifted in the past year? Noa adds: The legal issues that require the highest level of attention today sit at the intersection of intellectual property, user-generated content, and responsible AI deployment. As our products scale globally, our agreements and policies are structured to address these risks through clarity of allocation rather than excessive restriction of creativity. User-generated content risk has evolved in both scale and complexity. Synthetic media, likeness generation, and voice simulation intersect with copyright, privacy, and rightof-publicity laws. Our platform terms make clear that no rights are granted to use a person’s name, image, likeness, or persona without appropriate clearance. Users bear responsibility for obtaining required releases and ensuring lawful use of Output containing identifiable individuals or protected elements. This reflects our broader philosophy: we enable creative expression, but we do not transfer legal responsibility for clearance and compliance from the creator to the platform. A core principle for us is that creative technology should empower users, not preemptively constrain them beyond what is legally or ethically required. Our Acceptable Use Policy establishes guardrails against unlawful, harmful, or abusive use. These restrictions are designed to protect users and the public without restricting legitimate artistic or commercial creation. We do not believe in over-policing creative output. Instead, we structure responsibility as a shared obligation: the platform provides safeguards and transparency; customers and developers must deploy responsibly within their own contexts. Over the past year, I have observed two parallel trends. Firstly, users are increasingly seeking clarity rather than broad assurances. They want to understand, in concrete
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=