Posted on

Copyright and AI-Generated Images and Videos:

4 min read

Copyright and AI-Generated Images and Videos

What Businesses Need to Know to Stay Legal

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are reshaping content creation. It is now easier for businesses to produce images and videos for use on websites, social media, and other digital outlets. All this is possible without the traditional hurdles of expensive photoshoots, special design skills, or complex video production. However, as exciting as it is, business owners must pose and confront the question of whether these AI-generated images and videos are legally safe for commercial use from a copyright perspective.

Understanding AI-Generated Content and Copyright

AI-generated content is created by training algorithms with massive datasets of existing images, videos, and text. The AI models then analyze patterns from the training data to generate new content. However, issues arise concerning the ownership of the generated content. Without clear legal guidelines, the ownership of AI-generated images and videos remains a gray area that leaves businesses and individuals vulnerable to potential disputes.

Most jurisdictions, including the United States and the EU, deny copyright protection to work purely generated by AI as it lacks human authorship. The U.S. Copyright Office stated that only content with human creative input can be eligible for protection. In its January 2025 report, the U.S. Copyright Office also states that copyrightability must be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Laws differ globally. For instance, while the U.S. copyright office has rejected applications for AI-generated content, the U.K. allows copyright when a significant human intellectual effort guides the output.

Copyright laws do agree that a business risks infringement claims if AI-generated content resembles existing copyrighted material. So far, there has been a surge in the number of copyright lawsuits because of generative AI. A good example is Getty Images sued Stability AI, alleging its Stable Diffusion model copied millions of Getty’s photos without permission.

Generally, despite the efforts made to develop copyright laws for AI output, unlike content created by humans, there still lacks a clear legal framework for ownership and usage rights. For one, laws and legal frameworks struggle to keep up with the speed at which AI technology advances. This means that currently, no definitive, globally recognized legal standards firmly establish the copyright status of AI creations. For a business, although using AI visuals is not inherently legal or forbidden, it is best to be cautious and take due diligence.

Best Practices Every Business Owner Must Keep in Mind

  1. Read the terms of service (TOS)
    Every AI image and video generator has its own unique terms of service. Therefore, it is crucial to examine these terms carefully. Specifically, look for clauses that address issues such as commercial usage, ownership, indemnification, and TOS change policies.
  2. Understand model releases
    This especially applies where the AI-generated images may include recognizable human faces. In the same way that there are rights of publicity and privacy in traditional photography of human models, consider if this also applies to AI-generated faces.
  3. Documentation
    It is crucial to keep a record of each generated AI visual asset. Keep information such as AI platform used, prompts used, date of creation, TOS at the time of creation, and modifications made to the generated visual.
  4. Consider using well-established platforms.
    Although there is no AI platform that offers a 100 percent guarantee of copyright safety, it is safer to lean toward well-established and respected AI generators. Also, platforms trained using licensed or public domain data should be considered.
  5. Adopt the “human-in-the-loop” approach.
    This involves edits such as text overlays, color adjustments, or storyboarding. AI-generated content can be used as a starting point or for inspiration, but it is modified and refined by human designers. This results in a blend of AI assistant and human creative input to potentially mitigate copyright concerns.
  6. Seek expert legal counsel.
    When dealing with content that is central to a business identity, such as branding or major marketing campaigns, it is critical to seek guidance from an attorney specializing in intellectual property law.
  7. Stay informed
    Copyright law in the age of AI is not static; it is actively evolving. It is important, therefore, to commit to staying informed about legal developments, court rulings, and evolving practices. Business content strategies and practices also should be adjusted as the legal landscape changes.

Embrace the Future of Visuals Responsibly and Legally

The transformative power of AI to generate stunning visuals is promising to revolutionize business marketing and communication. However, business owners must approach this technology with a balanced perspective. That is, embracing its potential while avoiding copyright infringement, ensuring ethical content creation, and effectively safeguarding intellectual property assets.

Posted on

Protecting Critical Supply Chains, Recycling Programs and Victims of Digital Forgeries

3 min read

s 257, hr 825, s 351, s283, s 146, s281, s246Promoting Resilient Supply Chains Act of 2025 (S 257) – Introduced by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) on Jan. 2, this bill is designed to promote resilient critical supply chains by identifying, preparing for, and responding to supply chain shocks to critical industries. The ultimate goal of the legislation is to encourage the growth and competitiveness of production and manufacturing in the United States using emerging technologies. The bipartisan legislation is currently under consideration in the Senate.

To prohibit individuals convicted of defrauding the Government from receiving any assistance from the Small Business Administration, and for other purposes (HR 825) – This bipartisan legislation would prohibit a small business with a high-level associate convicted of any crime related to financial misconduct involving a covered loan or grant from receiving any financial assistance from the SBA. It was introduced by Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX) on Jan. 28 and is currently under consideration in the House.

STEWARD Act of 2025 (S 351) – This bill was introduced by Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) on Jan. 30. It would establish a pilot grant program to improve recycling accessibility and require the Environmental Protection Agency to collect and report on recycling and composting programs in the United States. The bipartisan bill is currently under consideration in the Senate.

Illegal Red Snapper and Tuna Enforcement Act (S 283) – This bill was introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) on Jan. 28 and is under consideration of the Senate. It would require the development of a standard methodology to identify the country of origin of seafood transported for sale in the United States to support enforcement against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.

TAKE IT DOWN Act (S 146) – Also introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), the purpose of this bill (also known as the Tools to Address Known Exploitation by Immobilizing Technological Deepfakes on Websites and Networks Act) is to remove visual depictions of intimate acts from the Internet. Currently, machine learning, artificial intelligence and other computer-generated technologies are being used to create digital forgeries of identifiable people, including minors, without their consent. This bipartisan legislation was introduced on Jan. 16, passed in the Senate on Feb. 13, and currently lies with the House.

TICKET Act (S 281) – This bipartisan bill would require sellers of event tickets to disclose all relevant information about ticket prices and related fees to consumers at the point of sale in order to prohibit speculative and predatory ticketing. The legislation was introduced by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO) on Jan. 28 and is under consideration in the Senate.

Interstate Transport Act of 2025 (S 246) – This bill was introduced on Jan. 24 by Sen. Ted Budd (R-NC). It is designed to protect the right of citizens from any state to transport knives to other states without bumping up against state and local prohibitions. Such an act would not be subject to arrest for the possession or transport of a knife without probable cause that the person intends to commit an offense punishable by imprisonment of a year or more. The bipartisan legislation is currently under consideration in the Senate.

Posted on

Understanding the Differences Between FCFF and NOPAT

3 min read

What is NOPATWhen it comes to financial analysis, there are two metrics that internal stakeholders and external users, such as investors and analysts, can use to assist with analyzing a business’s operations.

Free cash flow to the firm (FCFF) is used as part of a discount cash flow (DCF) calculation that aids in determining a company’s intrinsic value, helping investors make better informed decisions. This metric provides insight into how much cash flow is available to all funding claimants of the business (be it convertible bond investors, debt holders, and preferred and common stockholders). This is compared to free cash flow to equity (FCFE), which is how much cash flow a business can use if it has zero debt.

While there are many ways to arrive at FCFF, the following is one way to calculate it:

Step 1

Start with Net Operating Profit (NOPAT), which is determined by Earnings Before Interest and Taxes x (1 – Tax Rate)

Step 2

Add Depreciation and Amortization expenses to NOPAT

Step 3

Remove Capital Expenditures

Step 4

Remove Modifications in Net Working Capital

Further Considerations of FCFF Versus FCFE

FCFF assumes there are no payments for interest; nor have any changes in debt been factored in the company’s financial statements. FCFE factors in interest payments and any applicable changes in debt the company may have taken or paid off during the particular accounting time frame. FCFE provides analysts with the ability to determine how efficient a company is and how well (or not) it is at producing cash for equity holders.

Defining NOPAT

NOPAT is a way to see what the company’s operations produce, assuming it has no debt and, accordingly, no outstanding interest expense obligations. It gives analysts and investors an opportunity to look at potential investments with a standardized metric because companies can be seen as having debt and not having debt. It provides easier ability to see if companies can obtain and/or manage debt levels, along with other financial metrics used by investors and analysts.

Along with the already established formula to calculate NOPAT, there’s an alternate formula:

(Net Income + Tax + Interest Expense + Any Non-Operating Gains/Losses] x (1 – Tax Rate)

Operating Earnings = the company’s profits pre interest and taxes (or what the company would earn if it had zero debt, and therefore zero interest expense).

Putting NOPAT in Context

Other important considerations for NOPAT are that it excludes changes in accounts receivable, inventory, accounts payable, and inventory. Additionally, it excludes capital expenditures but accounts for amortization and depreciation.

How NOPAT Assists Analysts and Investors

Businesses can use this data to see how this metric drills down on the business’s core functions. It’s a way to determine how profitable or not a business’ core functions are over shorter and longer time frames. It helps businesses determine how efficient a company is against its competitors since it removes debt and tax comparisons.

Analysis is easier for both businesses looking for acquisitions and for investors. NOPAT helps investors determine which companies are most efficient within their sector based on their main functions. It helps remove the “noise” of debt levels and tax situations.

Looking at these two metrics at face value can seem daunting, but after breaking them down and understanding the differences, it’s easier to see how they aid in financial analysis.