Sign Up for Alerts
Sign up to receive receive industry-specific emails from our legal team.
Sign Up for Alerts
We provide tailored, industry-specific legal updates to our clients and other friends of the firm.
Areas of Interest
September 14th, 2022
How CC0 Can Help – or Hurt – NFT Projects
Blockchain Technology Co-Chair Jeremy S. Goldman is quoted in the article, “How CC0 Can Help – or Hurt – NFT Projects” published by The Block. The article speaks with IP lawyers for their take on the pros and cons of ‘creative commons’ (CC0), and copyright. Jeremy is quoted saying, “Copyright essentially allows individuals to have a monopoly over their creation for a certain period. Depending on the type of copyright license a creator adopts for their work, others may use that creator’s work for commercial and derivative use with or without attribution — but the intellectual property itself belongs to the original creator. When a creator copyrights their work, they are saying to consumers, ‘if you want if you like what I've created, and you want to use it and want to enjoy it, I am the only one who can give you permission to do that.’ By copyrighting their work, creators can seek legal action against those who they deem tread on their intellectual property.”
While, the landscape of NFTs and blockchain add a complicating layer to copyright, Jeremy says, “There is a ‘critical’ difference between the NFT and the art associated with that NFT. Once an NFT is minted, ‘it’s out in the wild.’” He adds, “NFT teams have absolutely no right or ability or power to do anything about the non-fungible token itself once it's been transferred out of their smart contract. The final decisions about the art, music or video associated with an NFT is ultimately left up to the original creators. When you buy the NFT, you're getting some additional layer of [ownership] rights, but you're not getting the intellectual property rights in the art. That's why there's some confusion. Those intellectual property rights are entirely controlled by the artists.”
Because of the complications that have arisen due to asset ownership and copyright, some NFT projects waived copyrighting their work and adopted CC0. Jeremy says, “If copyright adds barriers to a work, then, CC0 works like the upside-down world of copyright.” CC0 allows anyone to use an intellectual property without the creator’s permission.
Read the full article here.
Other Quoted
In a Data-Obsessed World, Attorneys Welcome Privacy Law Specialization
The Los Angeles Times quotes Daniel M. Goldberg on the California State Bar’s decision to offer a specialization in privacy law. Mr. Goldberg stated that the area of privacy regulation has been exploding with growth, with California on the forefront —driving a need for designating leaders in the field. “‘The law is very complex. But on top of the law being complex, the specialization really requires a level of technical expertise. The law talks all about measures that companies need to take with respect to collection, use, disclosure of data and opting out. But if you don’t understand how the technology works or how the ecosystem works, then it’s an area that would be very, very difficult for you,’ he said.”
“He added, ‘One thing about privacy law is that you also have to be an expert on what’s going on in the news, the latest changes and whether it has to do with ad-tech platforms or AI. If you’re not up with the latest changes, you’re going to fall behind very quickly.’”
Mr. Goldberg emphasized California's pioneering role in privacy regulation. He referenced the state’s passing “the first comprehensive privacy law (the California Privacy Act or CCPA) in 2018, which he said catalyzed the creation of similar laws across other states and established California as the national leader in privacy legislation.” He noted the state had also been a leader in enforcement, citing activity of the Attorney General’s office and the California Privacy Protection Agency’s multiple enforcement actions.
Mr. Goldberg also explained why data privacy is an increasing legal practice at law firms: “‘It’s incredibly lucrative just because it’s such a broad area. It really is a subject matter expertise that goes in so many different subcategories of practices, and so almost every firm now has to have a privacy expert.'" View Article
June 26 2025
Legal, Regulatory Woes Could Mark New Era for Influencers
Hannah E. Taylor is quoted in FTCWatch on class actions against influencers and the brands they represent. Such lawsuits alleging deceptive advertising are now seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. Ms. Taylor discussed this trend and commented on the FTC’s position, the NAD’s increased attention to influencer marketing, the responsibility of brands, and AI tools used to monitor content. View Article. (Subscription required)
June 24 2025
An Influencer Gained Followers as She Documented Her Weight Loss. Then She Revealed She Was on a GLP-1
Hannah E. Taylor is quoted in The Wall Street Journal about social media influencer Janelle Rohner, who shared her weight loss progression with diet and lifestyle tips, selling a paid course on nutrition. When Ms. Rohner posted she was taking a medication used for weight reduction and diabetes, her critics questioned her the legality of her advertising and e-commerce. The article stated, “Hannah Taylor, deputy managing partner and a partner in the advertising, marketing and public relations group at law firm Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz, said proving an influencer acted fraudulently is a high bar because many jurisdictions require showing that the defendant had an intent to deceive. False advertising is typically easier to prove. Taylor said if someone had purchased the course believing that it led to Rohner’s weight loss, when in fact the medicine was the cause, that could be a material omission that could subject the influencer to false advertising liability.” View article.
May 30 2025
