Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

The Future of Law and eTechnologies pp 81–109Cite as

Intellectual Property Protection of 3D Printing Using Secured Streaming

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

3D printing technology is a new and emerging technology which is capable of changing the world. However, an easy access to 3D printing technology makes a convenient way to illegally reproduce physical objects regardless of copyrights, license, and royalty payments. As 3D printing of physical things at home might become the “new normal,” it will pose threats to traditional intellectual property laws, which were created in an era when copyright infringement of physical objects, or also defined as “physibles,” was yet to come. The authors have brought forward the legal issues and have attempted to describe a unique technical solution—secured streaming which solves or at least partially solves the problem of copyrights in 3D printing. The proposed solution provides a possibility for a copyright owner to limit the number of 3D prints. He can specify the number of copies that are allowed for the manufacturer or an end user to produce. Moreover, secured streaming has detective and protective controls to detect information system compromises and to stop streaming of 3D designs to 3D printers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   159.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Bradshaw et al. (2010), pp. 7–8.

  2. 2.

    Ibid.

  3. 3.

    Stahl (2013), pp. 3–4.

  4. 4.

    Howells (2014), p. 13.

  5. 5.

    Weinberg (2013), p. 1.

  6. 6.

    New Balance (2013). Press release: New Balance Pushes the Limits of Innovation with 3D Printing. Available at: http://www.newbalance.com/press-releases/id/press_2013_New_Balance_Pushes_Limits_of_Innovation_with_3D_Printing.html (accessed 20.08.2015).

  7. 7.

    See examples of high-end 3D designs from Francis Bitonti Studio web page. Available at: http://www.francisbitonti.com/ (accessed 20.08.2015).

  8. 8.

    The online peer-to-peer sharing site, The Pirate Bay, launched a category for 3D designs called “physibles.” See, for example: Walters (2012).

  9. 9.

    Doherty (2012), p. 358.

  10. 10.

    Dasari (2013), p. 279.

  11. 11.

    Twomey (2014), p. 33.

  12. 12.

    See: Dolinsky (2014), pp. 629–631. According to Dolinsky, there is no question in the copyrights of 3D printed objects, which are protected as “pictorial, graphical and sculptural works,” and the main question will be the copyrightability of CAD files. See also: Rideout (2011), pp. 167–168. Rideout on the contrary states in his work that the copyrightability question of a CAD file is conditional to the eligibility of copyright protection of the 3D printed object. According to Rideout, it is the CAD files that would likely fall under “pictorial, graphic and sculptural works” and more specifically under “technical drawings, diagrams and models.”

  13. 13.

    Gartner (2013). Press release: Gartner Reveals Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users for 2014 and Beyond. Available at: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/2603215 (accessed 20.08.2015).

  14. 14.

    For example: Solid Edge from Siemens, Inventor from 3D Systems, Autodesk, Solid Works, etc.

  15. 15.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), p. 1452.

  16. 16.

    Xiaoxiang Shi (2012), p. 533.

  17. 17.

    Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), p. 431.

  18. 18.

    Merges et al. (2012), p. 720.

  19. 19.

    Nyman-Metcalf et al. (2014), p. 37.

  20. 20.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), p. 481.

  21. 21.

    Copyright Act 1976, 17 U.S.C., Section 107.

  22. 22.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), p. 481, and also see fn. 14 on that page where criticisms regarding the US approach and their contrast with the principle of statutory construction noscitur a sociis (i.e., that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by referring to the meaning of words associated with it) is discussed.

  23. 23.

    Khaosaeng (2014), p. 241.

  24. 24.

    Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), p. 435.

  25. 25.

    Ibid, p. 441.

  26. 26.

    Ibid, p. 442.

  27. 27.

    For example, see Raval (2012), p. 98, where controversies regarding gaming consoles and rights of gamers to make modifications in the software are explored in the prism of dichotomies under US and Australian copyright laws.

  28. 28.

    Merges et al. (2012), p. 363.

  29. 29.

    As held in Metro-Golwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Supreme Court of the United States 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

  30. 30.

    Haque (2008), p. 377. where the author discusses the case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer v Grokster (9th Cir) 380 F.3d 1154 (2004).

  31. 31.

    Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).

  32. 32.

    Karapapa (2011), p. 257.

  33. 33.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), p. 568.

  34. 34.

    Merges et al. (2012), p. 608.

  35. 35.

    Giblin (2012), p. 639, where the author analyzes the situation in Australia.

  36. 36.

    Merges et al. (2012), p. 692.

  37. 37.

    Daly (2007), pp. 319–324, where the author has conducted a review of post-2005 peer-to-peer file sharing issues.

  38. 38.

    Akester (2005), p. 106.

  39. 39.

    CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] A.C. 1013.

  40. 40.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), p. 449.

  41. 41.

    Monotti (2013), pp. 325–326.

  42. 42.

    Yan (2012), p. 123.

  43. 43.

    Copinger and Skone James (2005), pp. 450–451.

  44. 44.

    Savola (2014), pp. 285–286.

  45. 45.

    Ibid, p. 287.

  46. 46.

    Key-Matuszak (2013), p. 440.

  47. 47.

    Recording Industry Association of America v Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc 180 F. 3d 1072 (1999).

  48. 48.

    Ibid, p. 1079.

  49. 49.

    Merges et al. (2012), p. 712.

  50. 50.

    Dolinsky (2014), pp. 627–629.

  51. 51.

    Osborn (2014), p. 829.

  52. 52.

    Dolinsky (2014), pp. 629–631.

  53. 53.

    Ibid.

  54. 54.

    17 U.S.C. section 101.

  55. 55.

    Osborn (2014), p. 824.

  56. 56.

    Ibid, p. 829.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    Dolinsky (2014), pp. 637–639.

  59. 59.

    Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs. OJ L 111/16, 5.5.2009, recital (7). The term “computer program” has been somewhat defined for the purpose of the directive under the preamble, and it “/../shall include programs in any form, including those which are incorporated into hardware. This term also includes preparatory design work leading to the development of a computer program provided that the nature of the preparatory work is such that a computer program can result from it at a later stage.”

  60. 60.

    Mylly (2009), p. 880.

  61. 61.

    Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 077, 27.03.1996.

  62. 62.

    Ibid, recital (5), (7).

  63. 63.

    Toeniskoetter (2005), p. 76.

  64. 64.

    Mylly (2009), p. 880.

  65. 65.

    Rideout (2011), p. 175.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    Ibid.

  68. 68.

    Doherty (2012), p. 359.

  69. 69.

    Bradshaw et al. (2010), pp. 26–27.

  70. 70.

    Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs, recital (7).

  71. 71.

    Lewis (2014), pp. 315–316.

  72. 72.

    See more from: www.pinshape.com.

  73. 73.

    Levine (2014). Will 3D Printing Turn Lego Into an Intellectual Property Publisher? Available at: http://venturebeat.com/2014/03/03/will-3d-printing-turn-lego-into-an-intellectual-property-publisher/ (accessed 20.08.2015).

  74. 74.

    See more from: www.3dprinteros.com.

References

  • Akester P (2005) Copyright and the P2P challenge. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 27(3):106–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw S, Bowyer A, Haufe P (2010) The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd 7(1):7–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly M (2007) Life after Grokster: analysis of US and European approaches to file-sharing. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 29(8):319–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasari H (2013) Assessing copyright protection and infringement issues involved with 3D printing and scanning. Am Intellect Prop Law Assoc Q J 41:279

    Google Scholar 

  • Doherty D (2012) Downloading infringement: patent law as a roadblock to the 3D printing revolution. Harv J Law Technol 26:358

    Google Scholar 

  • Dolinsky K (2014) CAD’s cradle: untangling copyrightability, derivative works, and fair use in 3D printing. Washington Lee Law Rev 71:629–631

    Google Scholar 

  • Garnett KM, Davies G, Harbottle G (2005) Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Giblin R (2012) Stranded in the technological dark ages: implications of the Full Federal Court’s decision in NRL v Optus. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(9):632–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Haque H (2008) Is the time ripe for another exclusive right? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 30(9):371–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells JAJ (2014) The intellectual property right implications of consumer 3D printing. Available at: http://pure.au.dk/portal-asb-student/files/71036699/The_Intellectual_Property_Right_Implications_of_Consumer_3D_Printing_Final.pdf (accessed: 06.08.2015), p 13

  • Karapapa S (2011) Padawan v SGAE: a right to private copy? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 33(4):252–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Key-Matuszak P (2013) Time-shifting after NRL v Optus: a need for amendments. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 35(8):439–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Khaosaeng K (2014) Wands, sandals and the wind: creativity as a copyright exception. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 36(4):238–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis A (2014) The legality of 3D printing: how technology is moving faster than the law. Tulane J Technol Intellect Prop 17:315–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Merges RP, Menell PS, Lemley MA (2012) Intellectual property in the new technological age. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, Aspen Casebook Series, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Monotti AL (2013) Liability for joint infringement of a method patent under Australian law. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 35(6):318–326

    Google Scholar 

  • Mylly UM (2009) Harmonizing copyright rules for computer program interface protection. Univ Louisville Law Rev 48

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyman-Metcalf N, Dutt PK, Chochia A (2014) The freedom to conduct business and the right to property: the EU technology transfer block exemption regulation and the relationship between intellectual property and competition law. In: Kerikmae T (ed) Protecting human rights in the EU. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn LS (2014) Of PhDs, pirates and the public: three-dimensional printing technology and the arts. Texas A&M Law Rev 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Raval MI (2012) Game over for mod chips? The aftermath of Sony v Stevens and the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(2):95–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Rideout B (2011) Printing the impossible triangle: the copyright implications of three-dimensional printing. J Bus Entrep Law 5:167–168

    Google Scholar 

  • Savola P (2014) Blocking injunctions and website operators’ liability for copyright infringement for user-generated links. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 36(5):279–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl H (2013) 3D printing–risks and opportunities. Öko-Institut e.V. Institute for Applied Ecology, pp 3–4

    Google Scholar 

  • Toeniskoetter SB (2005) Protection of software intellectual property in Europe: an alternative sui generis approach. Intellect Prop Law Bull 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Twomey P (2014) A new dimension to intellectual property infringement: an evaluation of the intellectual property issues associated with 3D printing. Trinity Coll Law Rev 17:33

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinberg M (2013) What’s the deal with copyright and 3D printing?. White paper from Public Knowledge’s Institute for Emerging Innovation, p 1

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoxiang Shi S (2012) Time shifting in a networked digital world: Optus TV Now and copyright in the cloud. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(8):519–533

    Google Scholar 

  • Yan M (2012) The law surrounding the facilitation of online copyright infringement. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(2):122–126

    Google Scholar 

Others

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ministry of Justice of Republic of Estonia, Tõnismägi 5a, 15191, Tallinn, Estonia

    Paula-Mai Sepp

  2. 3DPrinter OS, Mektory Innovation Center Building, Raja 15, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia

    Anton Vedeshin

  3. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Akadeemia tee 3, 12618, Tallinn, Estonia

    Pawan Dutt

Authors
  1. Paula-Mai Sepp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anton Vedeshin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pawan Dutt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paula-Mai Sepp .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Tanel Kerikmäe

  2. Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of Technology, Tallinn, Estonia

    Addi Rull

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Sepp, PM., Vedeshin, A., Dutt, P. (2016). Intellectual Property Protection of 3D Printing Using Secured Streaming. In: Kerikmäe, T., Rull, A. (eds) The Future of Law and eTechnologies. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26896-5_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-26894-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-26896-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation