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
Copyright Guide or Policy Change? Project Divides IP Attys
Law360 quoted Jacqueline Charlesworth on the controversy surrounding the American Law Institute’s copyright restatement project. Ms. Charlesworth criticized the initiative as advancing a “revisionist theory” that could weaken copyright protections. She was among nearly two dozen advisers who resigned from the project, signaling deep concerns about its direction.
The article highlights a broader debate within the IP community: whether the restatement simply clarifies existing law or attempts to reshape policy in favor of users. Ms. Charlesworth’s perspective emphasizes the stakes for rights holders as courts and practitioners consider how much influence the restatement may carry. Read the Law360 article about the copyright restatement project here.
November 19 2025
Reports of ‘Click-to-Cancel’s Death May Be Premature
A Competition Policy International article quoted Holly A. Melton on the continuing impact of the Federal Trade Commission’s “click-to-cancel” rule , despite a recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision. Melton was quoted for her analysis of the FTC’s $2.5 billion settlement with Amazon over Prime subscription practices. In a blog post, Melton pointed to a clause in the agreement that anticipates future rulemaking around negative option features. “That’s not boilerplate,” she wrote. “It reads like a deliberate placeholder—future-proofing the settlement for the reappearance of Click to Cancel.” Melton interprets this as a strategic move by the FTC to potentially revive the rule through a new proceeding.
Melton’s outlook reflects a broader shift in the FTC’s enforcement priorities toward consumer-facing issues like subscription transparency and cancellation ease. She referenced Commissioner Mark Meador’s remarks about focusing on “everyday economic concerns affecting ordinary households” and noted that, even without immediate rulemaking, the agency’s litigation stance signals that subscription practices will remain a top-tier priority for the Bureau of Consumer Protection. Her guidance to advertisers and subscription services: “prioritize transparency, obtain affirmative consent, and make cancellation as effortless as sign-up. The ‘Click to Cancel’ may be down, but it’s not out,” Melton concluded, underscoring the FTC’s intent to keep its options open. Read the Competition Policy International post here.
November 11 2025
States Turn to Outside Firms to Generate Big Privacy Settlements
Holly A. Melton is quoted in the Bloomberg Law article on the growing practice of state attorneys general hiring outside counsel for litigation in data privacy and online safety cases. The article noted this shift boosts companies’ risk profiles, with smaller states taking on more complex cases. “‘One, don’t ignore the states that don’t necessarily have privacy laws because you’re not safe’ said Holly Melton, partner at Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. ‘And two, the sort of posture has already kind of ratcheted up when they come in with outside counsel who’s sort of running the show.’”
Bloomberg Law stated this strategy is getting mixed results. Some states point out that they could not bring certain cases without the staffing, resources and expertise of the private firms. But critics question outside counsels’ driving state priorities—selecting enforcement for big payouts or settlements, more akin to civil plaintiff litigation instead of traditional AG litigation that prioritizes companies changing their behavior. View Article.
October 9 2025
