By: Lezlee Zapatka

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming the creative landscape, generating everything from music to literature, and even political cartoons. As AI-created art becomes more prevalent, legal and constitutional questions arise: Should AI-generated political speech be protected under the First Amendment? Or is it merely software output, lacking the expressive intent required for constitutional protection? These questions challenge traditional notions of speech, authorship, and legal personhood in the digital age.

The First Amendment and Political Speech

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects freedom of speech, including political expression. Historically, courts have extended these protections broadly to individuals, corporations – such as in Citizens United v. FEC, where the majority maintained that political speech is indispensable to a democracy, which is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation – and even symbolic speech, like burning the American flag (Texas v. Johnson). However, these protections have always been tied to human expression. The legal system has yet to determine whether an AI-generated work can be considered “speech” with constitutional protections.

AI as a Creator: The Copyright Perspective

The debate over AI-generated speech parallels discussions in copyright law. In Thaler v. Perlmutter, the Court’s analysis consideredthe definition of “authors” in copyright law, finding that the term is not explicitly defined in the Copyright Act or the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed that works must have human authorship to be eligible for copyright protection. This ruling suggests that AI-created works are not legally recognized as protectable expressions under existing intellectual property laws. If AI cannot be an author under copyright law, can it be a speaker under constitutional law?

The Argument for Protecting AI-Generated Political Art

Proponents of AI-generated speech protections argue that the First Amendment is designed to safeguard ideas and expression, not just speakers. Therefore, if an AI-generated political cartoon conveys a powerful message, does its origin matter? The freedom to publish anonymously is protected by the First Amendment (McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n), and in some cases, it protects speech with no identifiable author.

Consider an AI that generates satirical images critiquing a government policy. If the government attempts to suppress these images, should it be allowed to do so simply because no human created them? It could be argued that the consumer, not the creator, determines the value of speech. If an audience perceives an AI-generated cartoon as meaningful political expression, it may warrant protection regardless of authorship.

The Argument Against AI Speech Rights

Opponents counter that constitutional rights have always been tied to legal personhood. AI lacks independent thought, consciousness, and intent and instead feeds on data, i.e., content, which in turn fuels the algorithms and statistical models driving automation practices. Unlike human artists who create political cartoons with specific viewpoints, AI operates based on algorithms and training data, with no genuine intent to communicate a message.

Furthermore, granting AI First Amendment protections could create regulatory loopholes. For example, corporations or governments could deploy AI-generated disinformation under the guise of protected speech, making accountability difficult. Without a clear legal framework, AI-generated political content could challenge existing laws on election interference, defamation, and propaganda.

The Role of the Human Operator

A potential middle ground focuses on the intent of the human deploying the AI. If a person prompts an AI to generate a political cartoon, should that person’s First Amendment rights extend to the output? Courts could apply existing free speech protections to the human user while excluding the AI itself from direct constitutional recognition. This approach aligns with copyright law, where AI-assisted works can still receive protection if a human sufficiently contributes to the creative process.

Future Legal Considerations

As AI technology advances, courts and legislators will need to address these complex questions. Potential legal reforms may include:

• Clarifying AI Speech Protections: Should AI-generated content be treated like corporate speech, requiring a human intermediary, or should it remain unprotected?
• Regulating AI-Generated Political Content: If AI can autonomously create political messaging, should election laws and disinformation policies apply?
• Defining AI’s Role in Expression: Should AI be recognized as a tool of expression rather than a speaker, with First Amendment rights granted only to human operators?

Conclusion

AI-generated political cartoons sit at the crossroads of free speech, authorship, and emerging technology. While the First Amendment robustly protects political expression, it has always been tied to human speakers. While there are no current cases debating the issue, the No Artificial Intelligence Fake Replicas And Unauthorized Duplications (No AI FRAUD) Act has been proposed to broadly protect people from unauthorized use of their own images and voices by defining these things as the intellectual property of each individual. As AI’s creative capabilities expand, courts and lawmakers must decide whether free speech protections should be extended to machine-generated content or remain firmly within the realm of human expression. Until then, the debate over AI and free speech will continue to challenge our understanding of rights in the digital age.

#AI #politicalcartoons #misinformation #censorship #freespeech

By: Matthew Bellavia

For decades, earning a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame signified a celebrity’s cultural impact and longevity in the entertainment industry. Today, launching a crypto coin seems to be the modern equivalent—a digital marker of influence and status. Just as millions once flocked to Hollywood Boulevard to see their favorite celebrities’ names immortalized in terrazzo and brass, fans now collectively invest ridiculous sums of money into celebrity-backed tokens.

As quickly as these tokens appear, they commonly see massive price swings up or down—leaving fans and investors with empty wallets, much like a poorly received film that flops on opening weekend. However, these dubious investments attract more than just movie stars and social media influencers, including U.S. President Donald Trump and Argentinian President Javier Milei. The past decade has seen a surge in high-profile controversies including personal-brand crypto coins and broader blockchain project endorsements. While some of these ventures have been legitimate efforts to engage with Web3 technology, others have ended up as failures or outright scams. Many of these projects have led to lawsuits and penalties from the SEC and FTC, yet few have been legally classified as securities. Why is that?

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) determines whether an asset is a security under the Howey Test, a legal standard established in 1946. Many celebrity-backed tokens exploit loopholes in this definition to avoid classification as securities, thus sidestepping strict SEC regulations and investor protections. However, beyond securities law, other legal frameworks, including consumer protection laws and fraud statutes, could provide additional safeguards for investors who lose money in these crypto projects. This article discusses how these tokens evade securities laws, examines other potential legal remedies, and considers whether future legislative developments could offer better protections for consumers.

Security Classification

When an asset is classified as a security, there are generally more requirements for registration and disclosure, as well as more fines and restrictions for non-compliance with the law. The Howey Test classifies assets as securities when they involve the following: (1) an investment of money, (2) in a common enterprise, (3) with an expectation of profits, and (4) are derived from the efforts of others. Celebrity crypto coins often fall into a gray area—if they are purely community-driven, decentralized, and lack a central entity promoting profit expectations, they may not meet the Howey criteria. Specifically, their decentralization suggests a lack of a common enterprise, and their lack of any discernible cash flows or assets backing their valuation suggests no expectation of profits.

However, if these assets are marketed with promises of financial gains, heavily promoted by influencers or developers, and controlled by a centralized team that influences their value, regulators like the SEC could find they qualify as securities. One potential avenue away from security classification is providing “utility” beyond simply an expectation of profits. For example, rapper Iggy Azalea’s crypto coin is accepted as payment by a telecom startup, of which she is a co-founder. Other potential utilities could include access to exclusive content or participation in governance matters for coin holders. These projects might evade security classification, but still often implicate consumer protection and tort laws, especially when involvement fades and the coin’s value rapidly collapses.

Recent SEC Interventions

Despite efforts to exploit loopholes in the law, the SEC has acted against several high-profile celebrity-backed crypto projects. In 2022, Kim Kardashian was fined $1.26 million by the SEC for failing to disclose that she was paid $250,000 to promote EthereumMax. Similarly, in 2018, Floyd Mayweather and DJ Khaled were fined by the SEC for promoting Centra Tech, an initial coin offering (ICO) later found to be a scam. In both cases, the underlying crypto assets were deemed securities, obligating the celebrities to disclose all consideration paid for their promotion.

Could the Government Change the Rules?

Two active legislation proposals seek to clarify the gray areas of digital asset regulation. The Digital Asset Market Structure and Investor Protection Act (introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2023) and the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in May 2024) both seek to separate the duties of the FTC and SEC with clear guidelines. Neither proposal has been enacted into law. Additionally, Congress has the power to strengthen consumer protection frameworks, to require more disclosures and regulations on celebrity endorsements of financial products. Moreover, several upcoming court cases could fundamentally change the regulation of crypto coins.

Any future government action is unclear under the new administration. In January 2025, President Trump issued an executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology,” highlighting the importance of regulatory clarity and promoting innovation. President Trump’s policy decisions are likely influenced by the fact that, according to estimates from three analysis firms, the entities behind his personal crypto coin accumulated close to $100 million in trading fees in less than two weeks, despite the value of the coin dropping nearly 75% since his inauguration day. President Trump’s decision to release his crypto coin has sparked anger in the cryptocurrency world. If the current administration is serious about regulating cryptocurrencies, perhaps they should start looking within their own house.

The Future of Celebrity Cryptocurrencies and Investor Protections

While some celebrity-backed crypto projects are outright scams, others attempt to create legitimate ecosystems. The challenge lies in distinguishing between the two and ensuring investors are protected. Despite high-profile lawsuits and fines, many celebrity-backed crypto projects continue to exploit legal loopholes to avoid being classified as securities. However, securities law is only one piece of the puzzle. Strengthening consumer protection laws and fraud enforcement mechanisms could provide broader safeguards for retail investors.

The SEC has taken steps to increase enforcement, but unclear legal definitions still allow many crypto coins to operate in a gray area. Moving forward, investors should be wary of celebrity-endorsed tokens, as they often rely on hype rather than substance. Meanwhile, courts and lawmakers have the power to close the loopholes allowing these questionable projects to thrive, but their plans are uncertain. The next wave of crypto enforcement may bring sweeping changes, but for now, the legal battle over celebrity crypto coins and consumer protections remains ongoing.

#WJLTA #crypto  #celebritytokens #securities

By: Teagan Raffenbeul

The entertainment industry has experienced a significant shift with the rise in streaming platforms. While streaming platforms date back to the early 2000s when Netflix first offered services for users to stream movies and TV shows on their computers, the streaming industry has surged in popularity in recent years. With convenience and accessibility top priorities for many consumers, companies have evolved to facilitate the “new era of on-demand content consumption.” It is estimated that 65% of media consumption comes from streaming platforms for individuals under 35. Numerous companies including Paramount, Max, Peacock, and Apple TV have launched their own streaming platforms, with Walt Disney Company (“Disney”) being no exception. In 2019, Disney launched its own streaming service, Disney+. Disney also owns a variety of other entertainment brands, including Fox, FX, Star+, ABC Television Network, Freeform, National Geographic, and other popular streaming platforms like Hulu and ESPN+.

While streaming film is effortless for consumers, a lot of advanced technology operates behind the scenes. Various innovations enable key methods and processes to power streaming platforms, with video encoding technology being particularly crucial. Video encoding technology allows for a reduction in the size of video files. This technology compresses data to allow for fast and efficient on-demand video streaming. Many of these video encoding technologies are patented, requiring companies wishing to use them in their streaming platforms to negotiate licensing agreements. Under 35 U.S.C., a patent grants the patent holder the exclusive rights to exclude others from making, using, and selling the patented innovation for a limited period. When licenses are not granted and companies use the technology without authorization, they are committing patent infringement. This is exactly what InterDigital, a global research and development company based in the U.S., has alleged Disney of engaging in. 

InterDigital’s Patent Infringement Lawsuit

On February 2^nd, 2025, InterDigital filed a patent infringement claim against Disney and its streaming platforms Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+. InterDigital not only filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California, but also in Brazil, Germany, and at the Unified Patent Court. The Unified Patent Court consists of members from all European Union states and is designed to create a more simplistic and efficient process and results in decisions taking effect in all member states.

The complaint filed in the U.S. identifies five patents InterDigital claims Disney has infringed upon. Three of these patents relate to data compression, covering encoding systems, block pixel predictions, and continuity procedures. The fourth patent focuses on a process to correct color discrepancies, while the fifth pertains to a method of improving user interfaces. InterDigital has highlighted the significance of their technology to the streaming industry, noting that without their patented technology, downloading a 130-minute movie would take over 4 ½ days. However, with their patented technology that same movie can be downloaded in just a few minutes. According to InterDigital, Disney has been able to create a profitable business, generating approximately $25 billion in revenue through its streaming platforms, due to their use of InterDigital’s patented methods and processes.

Licensing Agreements

A patent license grants another party the right to use the patented invention, typically in exchange for a fee. By participating in such exchanges, companies are able to access and use valuable inventions that could significantly benefit their business, while inventors generate revenue and that can be invested in further research and development. While InterDigital expressed a preference for amicable negotiations leading to licensing agreements, they have stated that enforcement is sometimes necessary to ensure fair compensation for their “groundbreaking research,” which also supports funding of future research to develop new technological innovations.  

InterDigital wants companies to use their innovations, as they believe their technological advancements have fueled industry growth. However, they expect those who benefit from their intellectual property, especially entities who benefit as substantially as Disney has, to pay for a license to use the patented technology. The complaint states that InterDigital reached out to Disney in 2022 to request licensing of their patents. However, no licenses were ultimately issued, and Disney has allegedly continued to use InterDigital’s patents without authorization. 

Other Intellectual Property Claims Disney Has Faced

Unfortunately for Disney, this is not their first intellectual property infringement lawsuit. In 2024, Adeia Inc., a research and development company that creates technology for the media industry, filed patent infringement lawsuits in the United States, Europe, and the Unified Patent Court. These patents are related to content delivery technology and various aspects of media streaming. Additionally, a lawsuit was filed under U.S. copyright law alleging Disney’s Moana 2 “ripped off” the work of another animator and writer. 
While Disney has won several intellectual property lawsuits, including numerous Mickey Mouse copyright infringement claims and a trademark infringement dispute against a Canadian animated film entitled Frozen Land,  they have also experienced some losses. Among their more notable losses was an order to pay over $600,000 in damages due for using motion-capture technology without permission in the live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast. This should indicate to InterDigital that taking on an entertainment giant as resourceful and powerful as Disney is not an automatic defeat, especially considering InterDigital has had success in similar cases against companies around the world.

#PatentInfringement #Disney #WJLTA