AMR Software
AMR Data Centers

European Parliament Report Examines Intellectual Property and Civil Liability Issues in 3D Printing

Share this Article

3D printing is, in many ways, like nothing anyone has ever seen before – and that includes the legal field. 3D printing has presented a whole new set of legal issues to be sorted through, and those issues go beyond copyright violation – although that’s one of them. 3D printing has its own unique set of intellectual property and civil liability problems, and legal experts and governments are still working to find the best ways to address them.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs recently released a working document dedicated to issues of intellectual property rights and civil liability in regards to 3D printing. The report brings up several issues, pointing out concerns in the medical field about the ethics of organ reproduction, as well as safety concerns about the production of automotive and aeronautical parts and firearms.

“3D printing also carries the risk of facilitating counterfeiting, not only in terms of individuals who might take advantage of exceptions for private copying, but also organised networks profiting from the sale of counterfeit goods,” the report states. “To prevent counterfeiting it is essential, therefore, to develop lawful 3D printing services, so that individuals who want to make a print of a work can do so without breaking the law, and ensuring that the author is fairly remunerated.”

Sad face by Thingiverse user Loubie, created after her intellectual property was stolen

The report isn’t designed to offer any concrete solutions for solving the intellectual property and civil liability issues in the 3D printing industry, but rather to point out the areas of most concern and discuss potential ways to mitigate them. First, the report tackles intellectual property. There’s a difference, it says, between home 3D printing for private use and commercial 3D printing, and home 3D printing isn’t causing a huge problem with copyright infringement. It cites another report drawn up for France’s Higher Council for Literary and Artistic Property that states:

“The great majority of fablab clients, such as online printing services, are professionals, especially designers, who use this technology to produce limited-edition objects as part of their creative activities. The main risk of counterfeiting is with works of art.”

The main challenge, the report continues, is to involve professional copyright intermediaries more closely.

The area of civil liability is quite murky. Who is responsible, the report asks, when someone is harmed by a 3D printed object? Is it the person who created the object, or is it the manufacturer of the 3D printer, or the creator of the software used to make the object?

“In general, civil liability is a matter which is not harmonised but subject to national legislation,” the report says. “EU legislation is limited to more specific rules on issues such as civil liability for defective products. As far as this liability is concerned, the question of whether 3D printer manufacturers should have greater liability than manufacturers of other tools or machines that can be used to create objects should be examined.”

The report raises other questions such as whether 3D files should include elements to make them traceable, or whether 3D printed objects should be embedded with traceable markers. It points out several solutions that have already been suggested to deal with issues of civil liability and intellectual property: creating a global database of 3D printable objects to control reproductions of copyright-protected items; introducing a legal limit on the number of private copies can be made of 3D objects; or imposing a tax on 3D printing to compensate intellectual property holders for losses suffered through private copies being made of 3D printed objects. None of these solutions, the report says, “is wholly satisfactory on its own.”

“It will take many years and a good deal of expertise before high-quality products can be made which do not pose a risk to users or consumers,” the report continues. “Anticipating problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement will require the adoption of new legislation at EU level or the tailoring of existing laws to the specific case of 3D printing.”

You can read the full report here.

Discuss this and other 3D printing topics at 3DPrintBoard.com or share your thoughts below. 

 



Share this Article


Recent News

Caracol’s Robotic LFAM Used to Fabricate 3D Printed Installation for Milan Design Week

3D Printing News Briefs, April 19, 2025: Material Extrusion Standard, Metal Powder, & More



Categories

3D Design

3D Printed Art

3D Printed Food

3D Printed Guns


You May Also Like

Fictiv Sold to Japan’s MISUMI for $350 Million

MISUMI (TSE: 9962) is acquiring Fictiv for $350 million. The Japanese manufacturer, known for supplying factory automation components like shafts, bearings, and fasteners, wants to combine its global production and...

Japan Unveils World’s First 3D Printed Train Station

Japan is now home to what we believe is the world’s first train station built with 3D printing technology. Located in Arida City, just south of Osaka, the new Hatsushima...

3D Printing News Briefs, April 16, 2025: AM Award Winners, Cold Spray, Drones, & More

We’ve got some more news from last week’s RAPID+TCT to kick off today’s 3D Printing News Briefs, and then moving on to some interesting pieces of military AM news. Read...

Meltio’s Wire-Laser Metal AM Joins South Korea’s Defense Arsenal

Spanish multinational Meltio announced that South Korea’s Marine Corps Logistics Group has just become the first military unit in the country to roll out robot-based metal 3D printers powered by...