53 terms (1) Who owns the Output; (2) Whether their data is used for training; and (3) Who bears responsibility for clearance and downstream use. Our agreements address these questions directly. This clarity is not merely defensive drafting, it is a trustbuilding mechanism in an environment where ambiguity undermines adoption. Secondly, from a regulatory perspective, we are still in a transitional phase. Outside of certain defined domains, there is not yet a fully harmonized, detailed regulatory regime governing general-purpose creative AI tools. In many jurisdictions, regulators appear to be observing how the market structures responsibility, governance, and safeguards before imposing prescriptive horizontal rules. How has the role of the legal function evolved at Lightricks as the company and its products have scaled globally? Noa points out: As Lightricks has evolved with LTX into an AI-first company, the legal function has had to evolve in parallel, not only in substance, but in structure, mindset, and tooling. In earlier stages, the legal team’s primary focus was transactional. As our products became AI-native and widely deployed globally, the scope shifted significantly. Legal is no longer a downstream reviewer of product decisions; it is embedded at the design stage. Being part of an AI-first company requires a different operating model. AI products iterate rapidly. Features may evolve weekly. Deployment may vary across jurisdictions with differing regulatory sensitivities. This requires the legal team to move from static compliance to dynamic risk governance. We must understand model architecture, data flows, product design choices, and deployment models, not at a theoretical level, but at a practical one. Looking to 2026 and beyond, what emerging legal or regulatory challenges do you expect to have the biggest impact on creativetech companies, and how are you preparing internally? Noa concludes: The most significant forward-looking challenges for creative-tech companies are likely to include, among others: AI-specific regulatory regimes, global fragmentation of digital regulation, evolving rights management and licensing models for AI training data, and regulation of synthetic identity and authenticity. Implementation of emerging AI legislation, particularly classification-based regimes, will increase documentation, transparency, and audit-readiness requirements. At the same time, divergent regulatory approaches across jurisdictions may require differentiated deployment strategies. Litigation trends around training data and copyright will likely continue to shape market standards. Disclosure expectations around AI-generated or AI-modified content may also expand. Internally, we are investing in enhanced documentation and governance frameworks that provide clarity and stability in an evolving regulatory landscape. With external advisors, we prioritize long-term partnerships rather than episodic engagement. We seek firms that combine regulatory depth and practical commercial understanding across the US, Israel, and Europe. The strategic objective is clear: maintain product leadership while building durable legal infrastructure that supports scale, user trust, and long-term enterprise value. Learn more about the ACC 2026 Chief Legal Officers Survey – Israel Supplement, produced by the ACC, in collaboration with FTI Consulting, here. US-ISRAEL LEGAL REVIEW GC VIRTUAL SUMMIT
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=