[Summary]
While advertisements and content that utilize generated AI are significantly lowering production costs for companies, they are also starting to create new reputational risks.
What is important is that the core of the issue is not just copyright theory.
Companies are asked:
- “Respect for culture”
- "Quality control"
- “How to deal with the creator”
- “Transparency of AI use”
- “Who has final responsibility?”
It is.
In May 2026, Utena Co., Ltd., a long-established cosmetics manufacturer, reportedly announced a policy to delete videos and transportation advertisements after receiving complaints that their advertisements and PR videos that utilized generative AI were ``similar to other companies' anime works.''
While explaining that the company assumed compliance with laws and regulations,
“There was a lack of consideration”
We explained the purpose of this.
This sentence symbolizes the essence of the era of generative AI.
The current AI outbreak is Rather than “Illegal or not?”
“Does it appear sincere to society?”
We are moving into an era in which the question of
For investors, this is more than just a commotion on social media. Companies that cannot use AI safely can simultaneously damage their brand value, advertising efficiency, hiring ability, and trust from business partners.
Current location in 2026 shown by Utena case
In May 2026, Utena released an AI-powered advertisement that caused a great deal of discussion on social media.
From some users,
- Similarity to existing anime works
- Depends on style
- Inconsistency with brand image
- Lack of explanation regarding AI usage
This is because such things were pointed out.
According to reports, while the company was carrying out legal checks involving outside experts, it also indicated that it was considering reviewing its system for checking expressions, including consideration for viewers.
What is important is the content of the statement.
The company is
- Be conscious of legal compliance
- Not intended to infringe on rights
After explaining,
“There was a lack of consideration”
said.
Herein lies the essence of the current AI problem.
In other words, even if the company believes that there is no legal problem, brand risk will occur if consumers and fan communities feel that they have been treated poorly.
Corporate risks in the era of generative AI cannot be handled by the legal department alone. Public relations, marketing, brand managers, production companies, and management need to make decisions using the same criteria.
There is a difference between “legal” and “acceptable”
In traditional corporate risk management,
*Is it copyright infringement?
- Is it a trademark violation? *Is it a portrait rights issue?
The focus was on "laws" such as:
But in the age of generative AI, that alone is no longer enough.
What consumers in the SNS era are looking at is
- “Corporate attitude”
- “Honesty”
- “Respect for culture”
- “Sense of distance from the creator”
That's why.
That is, currently
Legal
Not only
Social
is being strongly questioned.
Even if there are no legal issues,
- “A picture I saw somewhere”
- "Having fun"
- “It seems like it disrespects creators.”
- "I can't feel the brand philosophy"
If it is taken as such, there will be an uproar.
This is a brand issue, not a legal issue.
From an investor's perspective, this difference is significant.
When it comes to legal issues, the focus is on whether or not damages and injunctions are available. But when it comes to brand issues,
- Advertisement removal cost *Campaign reproduction cost
- SNS support cost *Customer defection
- Negative impact on recruitment publicity
- Stricter screening of business partners
In this way, it has an effect on business performance and corporate evaluation over time.
The era of AI mass production has begun
Generative AI has dramatically lowered creative production costs for companies.
Advertisement videos that used to cost millions of yen now
- Tens of thousands of yen
- a few days *Small number of people
mass production is possible.
It is especially compatible with SNS advertising.
Companies are
- Bulk posts
- AB test
- High-speed PDCA
can now be run at low cost.
However, this "mass production" is starting to create other problems.
The real risk of generative AI is not that it can create a single ad, but that it can create an infinite number of ads of similar quality.
As the amount of production increases, the amount of confirmation also increases. However, in many companies, the systems for reviewing AI products cannot keep up with the speed of production.
The trap of “mass-produced creative”
AI products have unique characteristics.
- Similar composition
- Similar light expression
- Similar colors
- Similar character feel
It is.
In other words, the more efficient the
“Déjà vu”
becomes stronger.
Furthermore, the company
- Lack of final confirmation
- Lack of worldview design
- Lack of brand integrity
If you publish it as is,
"Cheap mass-produced advertising"
become more easily recognized as
This is especially
- Long-established company
- Luxury brand
- Creative companies
- Companies that handle IP
- Products for children and young people
more likely to cause fatal injuries.
Because consumers
“The uniqueness of the company”
That's because I'm looking forward to it.
From the “Uncanny Valley” to the “Valley of Dishonesty”
Traditionally, the problem with AI images is
- Something wrong with my fingers
- face collapses
- Movement is unnatural
Such as
"Uncanny Valley"
It has been talked about as
However, as of 2026, the problem is no longer there.
This is because advances in AI technology have led to higher quality in terms of appearance.
What is the reason why the flames still continue to flare up?
That is
“Valley of Dishonesty”
It is.
This is
- Opacity of the production process
- Easy cost reduction
- Feeling of human absence
- Lack of respect for culture
This is a phenomenon in which consumers psychologically distance themselves from a brand the moment they see it.
In other words, today's consumers
“I don’t like it because it’s AI.”
That's not it.
"Corporate attitude seems sloppy"
I'm reacting to that.
This is extremely important.
The more natural the appearance of an AI product, the more the company's philosophy is asked, ``Why did they choose that expression?''
It's not because the quality is low that it's under fire. Precisely because the quality appears to be above a certain level, the cheapness and borrowed feel of the work stands out.
Why are Japanese companies particularly prone to flameouts?
The Japanese market has a unique culture.
That is,
- Craftsman culture
- Manual work faith
- Respect for the production process
- Empathize with the creator
It is.
In particular,
- Anime
- Manga
- Illustration *Game
- Cosmetics
- Luxury products
For example, "people's commitment" is part of the brand value.
Therefore,
"Mass-generated using AI"
If you get a strong impression that
“I lost my soul”
It feels like.
This is a highly emotional issue and cannot be measured by numbers alone.
However, that is what brand value is all about.
AI controversy does not end with “SNS uproar”
It is dangerous to ignore this point.
Traditional advertising flameouts are
- Temporary criticism *PR failure
It was often treated as
However, in the era of generative AI,
*AI understanding level
- Governance ability
- Quality control
- Ethics
- Management attitude
is visualized all at once.
In other words, the current AI outbreak is
“Can this company handle AI safely?”
The management evaluation is starting to change.
This is also important from an investor's perspective.
This is because AI flare-ups directly damage companies' intangible assets.
Brands, customer trust, recruiting ability, relationships with creators, and relationships with agencies are barely visible on the balance sheet. However, in consumer goods, media, entertainment, advertising, and SaaS, these are sources of future cash flow.
Weakness in AI governance progresses as invisible assets deteriorate.
What is AI governance?
What is needed in the future is
“AI prohibited”
Not.
What you need is
“Ability to govern AI”
It is.
The following five points are particularly important.
AI governance here does not simply mean creating internal regulations.
- Separate AI that can be used and AI that cannot be used
- Separate data that can be entered from data that is prohibited.
- Decide who will check the product
- Clarify check criteria before external disclosure *Determine the person responsible and response procedures when a problem occurs
For the first time, it can be called governance, including such practical operations.
Human in the Loop
Don't give up on AI
AI is an auxiliary tool, not a responsible entity.
Finally,
- What to serve
- What to hire
- What to publish
must be judged by humans.
"Because it was created by AI"
is not an exemption from corporate liability.
Human reviews should not be used as formal approval, especially in areas that affect external impressions, such as advertising, IR, and recruitment PR.
It's not just typos and image quality that you need to check.
- Does it seem like a brand? *Wouldn't it lead to misunderstanding?
- Is there a lack of respect for existing works or specific communities?
- Is the production process explainable both internally and externally?
I need to see it.
AI traceability
Leave generation history
What will become important in the future is
*Which AI did you use?
- What kind of prompt was it?
- What is the reference image?
- Who approved it?
This is a system to record information.
In other words,
“How was it generated?”
There is a high possibility that it will be subject to management.
This will also lead to future AI audits.
With generative AI, it is difficult to identify the cause of risks just by looking at the deliverables.
When a problem occurs,
*Tools used
- Input material
- prompt
- Modification history
- Approver
If it is not possible to track the situation, measures to prevent recurrence will become unclear.
Brand Integrity Review
Even if AI products appear to be of high quality,
- Corporate character
- World view *tone
- Atmosphere
may be damaged.
Especially in long-established companies,
“Is the company really likely to sell it?”
That feeling is important.
This is where the brand design ability of the company is tested, not the performance of the AI.
AI is good at producing well-defined expressions on average, but it does not guarantee expressions that are natural and unique to that company.
Ethics/Culture Review
AI issues do not end with laws.
For example,
- Respect for existing culture
- Relationship with the creator community
- Social acceptability
etc. are also important.
This feeling is especially strong in Japanese anime and illustration culture.
It is dangerous to think that just because you have passed a legal review, you are safe.
In a review of the AI era,
- Law
- Ethics *Culture *Brand
- Community sentiment
need to be looked at separately.
Clarify who is ultimately responsible
The most dangerous thing about using AI is
“A state where no one is responsible”
It is.
- Advertising agency
- Production company
- AI vendor *In charge of SNS
If responsibility becomes ambiguous between parties, it will collapse in the event of a firestorm.
It is necessary to clarify who is ultimately responsible.
The more AI is used, the easier it will be to decentralize responsibility.
That is why it is necessary to decide ``who gave the final approval'' before making it public, and ``who will give an explanation'' in the event of a controversy.
Path to performance
In the short term, the AI controversy appears to be a hot topic on social media.
However, the impact on corporate value appears in the following ways.
Deterioration of advertising efficiency
Advertisements that cause controversy will need to be removed or suspended.
In that case,
- Production costs *Media costs
- Agency fees *Reproduction cost
is likely to be wasted.
Furthermore, if brand damage occurs, it will be difficult to lead to purchases or inquiries even if the same advertising budget is used.
Decline in brand premium
When it comes to cosmetics, luxury goods, entertainment, education, food, etc., consumers buy based not only on functionality but also on their ``favorable impression of the company.''
If the usage of generation AI seems sloppy,
- cheap
- Cutting corners
- Disrespecting the creator
This leads to the impression that
This reduces pricing power.
Negative impact on recruitment/partnerships
Creators, engineers, designers, and young human resources are watching companies' attitudes toward AI usage.
Companies with weak AI governance are likely to be at a disadvantage when it comes to recruitment promotion and collaboration with external creators.
Increased regulatory and audit costs
In the future, rules regarding disclosure of AI products, training data, copyright, personal information, and accountability may be strengthened.
Companies that establish a management system first can easily reduce the cost of complying with regulations. On the other hand, companies that use AI on an ad hoc basis may incur large costs for corrections later.
Corporate value will change in the AI era
Corporate evaluations may change in the future.
Until now,
- AI introduction
- DX promotion
- Improve operational efficiency
has been evaluated.
But from now on,
“Can AI be operated safely?”
is asked.
In other words,
- AI utilization ability
- Governance ability
- Brand resistant
- Ethics management *Flame resistance
is likely to become part of corporate value.
Points that investors should look at
From an investor's perspective,
"Companies using AI"
than,
“A company that can govern AI”
It is important to determine.
In particular,
- Advertisement *Publishing *Entertainment
- Luxury brand
- Cosmetics
- Media
It is of high importance in the emotional value industry.
The AI uproar is not just a SNS uproar;
*Brand damage *Customer churn
- ESG rating decline
- Foreign investor concerns
may lead to.
The points to check are as follows.
Have you disclosed your AI usage policy?
Companies that can explain their AI usage policies externally are at least aware of the issues.
On the other hand, companies need to be careful about the use of AI, but cannot clearly see the scope of its use or its responsibility structure.
Is there a creative approval process?
Check whether there is an approval flow for external content such as advertisements, SNS, videos, IR materials, recruitment announcements, etc.
In particular, when it comes to generative AI, if it is left to the production company or agency, there is a possibility that it will be made public without the company being aware of the risks.
Is there a sense of distance from IP and cultural assets?
In anime, manga, games, music, fashion, cosmetics, etc., consideration of style and context is important.
The idea that ``it's similar but not illegal'' is dangerous for brand companies.
Is the response speed fast when a problem occurs?
In the case of an AI outbreak, the company's initial response will have an impact on its corporate image.
The important thing is that
- Recognition
- Description
- Withdrawal decision
- Recurrence prevention measures
The key is how quickly you can show it.
Are you viewing AI governance as a competitive advantage rather than a cost?
Best companies treat AI governance not just as a defense, but as a mechanism to increase brand trust.
Companies that can use AI safely will be able to achieve both production efficiency and brand value in the long run.
Conclusion
Generative AI will greatly change corporate productivity.
But at the same time
- Humanity
- Integrity
- Respect for culture
- Brand philosophy
It is also a technique that asks questions.
The Utena case showed that
“Abiding by the law is enough”
It may be the end of that era.
What companies need from now on is
“Ability to use AI”
Not just that.
The real question is,
“A company that can govern AI?”
It is.
AI will penetrate all aspects of business, including advertising production, customer service, development, legal affairs, finance, and recruitment.
At that time, it is not only the speed of introduction that influences corporate value.
- How much should be left to AI?
- Where does human responsibility come from?
- What to publish and what to stop
- How is it viewed by society?
This is the management ability to make judgments.
And it's not just technical ability,
“Corporate dignity”
Maybe that's what it is.