Pamela Samuelson

Amicus briefs support Arista in Cisco litigation

Pamela Samuelson cited by Project DisCo, Jan. 9, 2018

Professor Pam Samuelson … argued that the scenes a faire doctrine was more robust than suggested by Cisco. … Further, Professor Samuelson argued that Cisco’s argument that it had a copyright in the compilation of commands was incoherent given that there was no free-standing work constituting a compilation of commands.

We need new regulations to protect us from Facebook and Equifax

Pamela Samuelson quoted by VentureBeat, Sept. 28, 2017

Pamela Samuelson says the FTC has “statutory authority to regulate unfair and deceptive practices [and] can act on that authority by initiating claims against those who fail to maintain adequate security.” She notes that the FTC has usedthese powers before, nudging firms to have privacy and security policies.

Why universities need scholarly-communications experts

Pamela Samuelson writes for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 11, 2016

If faculty members, in particular, get smarter about copyright and publishing contracts, universities may be able to make their research more widely available. … Such dissemination serves universities’ teaching and research missions, and the interests of scholars who write to have an impact on their students, their fields of study, and the larger society.

Google Book Search helps, not hurts, authors

Pamela Samuelson writes for The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 13, 2016

The Authors Alliance represents authors who want their books to be discoverable and reach new generations of readers. Book Search helps to achieve this goal. It consists largely of nonfiction books written by scholars in the hope that the books would be read by others and contribute to the ongoing progress of knowledge creation and dissemination, in keeping with the constitutional purpose of copyright.

Google’s court victory is good for scholarly authors. Here’s why.

Pamela Samuelson writes for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Oct. 27, 2015

The guild argues that the ruling deprives authors of licensing revenues that were sought as a remedy for Google’s use of in-copyright books. But the appellate court was unpersuaded by the guild’s licensing theory, because, it said, what matters for purposes of fair-use analysis is whether snippets displace the market for books, which the court held they do not.