The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 29, 2011 by Marc Parry
http://chronicle.com/article/Out-of-Fear-Institutions-Lock/127701/

The system hinges on a collecting society that would negotiate licenses for works owned by both members and nonmembers. Unclaimed money from out-of-print books could be set aside for “a period of years,” Ms. Samuelson suggests. If efforts to find owners during that time were unsuccessful, she writes, “the works should be designated orphans and made available on an open-access basis.”

Publishers Weekly, May 16, 2011 by Calvin Reid
http://bit.ly/m1BH1i

“It’s time to talk about general copyright reform,” Samuelson said. “The [U.S.] Copyright Office is the best entity to find out what the parties want and what may be a good model for legislation. Google is in a strong position on fair use and the publishers are not interested in further litigation. Chin wants a new settlement with an opt-in for out-of-print books.”

The Wire Report, May 6, 2011 by Howard Knopf
http://bit.ly/k6QjUR

For that tiny investment by Google standards, the company would have acquired a remarkable and likely insurmountable lead in the digitization and control of a database of all the world’s useful knowledge in book form, and a virtual monopoly on dealings with orphan works. It would have been relieved of potential liability that Pam Samuelson estimates to be in the trillions of dollars, based upon the statutory minimum damages.

The Washington Examiner, May 2, 2011 by Nicole Ciandella
http://bit.ly/jcu9Rn

Steven Seidenberg suggests that the architects of the failed Google Books settlement may have inadvertently provided a blueprint for a long-awaited congressional solution for orphan works’ publication. He quotes Pamela Samuelson…. “One aspect of the Google Books settlement provides another model Congress might be willing to consider: allowing use of works that may be orphaned as long as the user pays for the use, with some of the funds used to search for the rights owner.”

The New York Times, April 3, 2011 by Miguel Helft
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/04/technology/04library.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=Berkeley&st=nyt

“I think the biggest obstacle is copyright,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law and information management at the University of California, Berkeley who opposed the settlement and is working on legal issues facing the digital public library.

-The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 22, 2011 by Jennifer Howard
http://chronicle.com/article/Judge-Rejects-Settlement-in/126864/

He went on to quote from a statement submitted by Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, who wrote that academic authors “are committed to maximizing access to knowledge,” while the plaintiffs “are institutionally committed to maximizing profits.”

-The New York Times, March 22, 2011 by Miguel Helft
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/23/technology/23google.html?scp=1&sq=Berkeley&st=nyt

“Even though it is efficient for Google to make all the books available, the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be addressed by Congress, not by the private settlement of a lawsuit,” said Pamela Samuelson.

-Contra Costa Times, March 22, 2011 by Brandon Bailey
http://www.contracostatimes.com/business/ci_17673453?nclick_check=1

Other critics praised the judge for rejecting a plan they viewed as sharply contradicting the nation’s copyright laws. “That’s what copyright law stands for. Nobody gets to use your work without your permission,” said Pamela Samuelson.

-The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 23, 2011 by Marc Parry
http://chronicle.com/article/A-Copyright-Expert-Who-Spoke/126877/

“Libraries have been very, very careful over time about protecting the privacy interests of their user base. And Google was not willing to make commitments to essentially accomplish an equivalent level of protection. When we’re talking about a corpus of books that millions of people in the U.S. would be using, not to have any serious privacy commitments here really was distressing.”

-Inside Higher Ed, March 23, 2011 by Steve Kolowich
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/03/23/judge_rejects_google_books_settlement

Samuelson had argued that it would be inappropriate for Google and the publishers to profit from the use of orphaned scholarly works—which she believes comprise a disproportionately large number of the orphans—when the academics who wrote them probably intended that they be as freely accessible as possible.

-The New York Times, March 23, 2011 by Claire Cain Miller
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/24/business/media/24google.html?_r=1

“The next thing to do is think about going to Congress and getting legislation that would make particularly orphan works available to the public.”

-San Jose Mercury News, March 27, 2011 by Chris O’Brien
http://www.mercurynews.com/chris-obrien

“The settlement would give them a monopoly that they would potentially use to fix prices,” said Pamela Samuelson, a professor of law at UC Berkeley, who has been among the most vocal opponents of the deal. “When the DOJ (Department of Justice) came out against the settlement that was a very significant development.”

-Beyond Chron, March 29, 2011 by Irvin Muchnick
http://www.beyondchron.org/news/index.php?itemid=9031

The federal government, after constructively intervening in Google, should find a way to coordinate the cases and spur Congress to codify compulsory licenses…. In an email exchange with Samuelson, a fellow Berkeleyan, she expressed sympathy for my viewpoint. “I am working on legislative alternatives,” Pam told me, “and an extended collective licensing regime is an interesting idea.”

San Francisco Chronicle, November 24, 2010 by James Temple and Benny Evangelista
http://bit.ly/egNuDu

It might be a big enough number to inadvertently hamper technology development, Samuelson said…. Samuelson is worried the decision could make some companies overly cautious of pursuing otherwise innovative work that might appear comparable to existing products in the eyes of a jury. “People will be less likely to do things that might be worth doing because a jury might decide it was on this side of the (legal) line, instead of that side,” she said.

Communications Daily, November 23, 2010 by Louis Trager
http://www.warren-news.com/cdtrial.htm (requires registration; go to G:\Law School in the News\News Clips for article)

There’s a good deal of support for an agreement on protecting audio-visual works…. The work plan “makes limitations and exceptions” to copyright a legitimate discussion topic and raises their profile, said Pamela Samuelson, director of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology…. She encouraged WIPO to look into whether additional limits and exceptions should be created to increase “balance” in the law and “restore legitimacy to copyright.”