Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘You Wouldn’t Download a Car’: 3D Printing and Intellectual Property

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution

  • 1099 Accesses

Abstract

Prominent in discussions about the interaction of law and 3D printing has been the effect that 3D printing may have on IP, in terms of how and when new IPRs are created by the 3D printing process, and how and when the IP of others may be infringed. Given IP disputes, especially around file-sharing, have been one of the defining features of cyberlaw literature and jurisprudence, there is great anticipation about whether similar battles will be witnessed with 3D printing. However, while copyright was mainly at issue in the Internet context, 3D printing also implicates other areas of IP, notably patents, design rights, and trade marks, particularly given the fact that 3D objects are created by 3D printing. Indeed, the phrase ‘you wouldn’t download a car’ from a 2004 Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) campaign aimed at the illicit sharing of copyrighted items takes on new dimensions in the 3D printing context, especially since 3D printed cars have been developed—and it is already possible to download more mundane 3D printing files for car parts. This chapter explores this interaction between 3D printing and IP, both theoretically and practically, looking at how this relationship is playing out so far.

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

Access this chapter

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    US Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Other legal traditions, such as that of civil law countries including France, have placed more emphasis on authorship as constitutive of IPRs, and less influence on IP as being instrumental to innovation. See: C. Chinni (1992) ‘Droit d’Auteur versus the Economics of Copyright: Implications for American Law of Accession to the Berne Convention’ Western New England Law Review, 14(2), 145–174.

  2. 2.

    M. Boldrin and D. K. Levine (2008) Against Intellectual Monopoly (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

  3. 3.

    E. G. Coleman (2012) Coding Freedom: The Ethics and Aesthetics of Hacking (Princeton: Princeton University Press).

  4. 4.

    D. Mendis (2014) ‘“Clone Wars”: Episode II – The Next Generation: The Copyright Implications Related to 3D Printing and Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Files’ Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(2), 265–281.

  5. 5.

    Council Directive 2009/24/EC of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (codified version) [2009] OJ L111/16.

  6. 6.

    Mendis (2014) ‘“Clone Wars II”: Episode II’, 270.

  7. 7.

    For example: Case C-5/08 Infopaq International A/S v Danske Dagblades Forening [2010] ECR I-6569.

  8. 8.

    Mendis (2014) ‘“Clone Wars II”: Episode II’, 271.

  9. 9.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 3(1)(b) and (c).

  10. 10.

    S. Bradshaw, A. Bowyer and P. Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’ SCRIPTed, 7(1), 5–31, 24.

  11. 11.

    Autospin (Oil Seals) Ltd v Beehive Spinning (A Firm) [1995] RPC 683, 698.

  12. 12.

    P. Samuelson (1988) ‘American Software Copyright Law’ Columbia-VLA Journal of Law & the Arts, Vol. 13, 61–75.

  13. 13.

    M. Simon (2013) ‘When Copyright Can Kill: How 3D Printers are Breaking the Barriers between “Intellectual” Property and the Physical World’ Pace Intellectual Property, Sports and Entertainment Law Forum, 3(1), 59–97, 71.

  14. 14.

    Simon (2013) ‘When Copyright Can Kill’, 79.

  15. 15.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up.

  16. 16.

    M. Weinberg (2013) What’s The Deal With Copyright and 3D Printing, Public Knowledge White Paper, p. 19.

  17. 17.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up.

  18. 18.

    Simon (2013) ‘When Copyright Can Kill’, 82.

  19. 19.

    U.S. Copyright Office (2015) ‘Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts’, Circular 40, www.copyright.gov/circs/circ40.pdf, accessed 11 September 2015.

  20. 20.

    Simon (2013) ‘When Copyright Can Kill’, 83.

  21. 21.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 4(1)(1).

  22. 22.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 51.

  23. 23.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 24.

  24. 24.

    T. Margoni (2013) ‘Not for Designers: On the Inadequacies of EU Design Law and How to Fix It’ Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 4(3) 225–248, 236.

  25. 25.

    D. Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1: The Rise of 3D Printing and its Implications for Intellectual Property Law – Learning Lessons from the Past?’ European Intellectual Property Review, 35(5), 155–169, 167.

  26. 26.

    C Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 52.

  27. 27.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 23.

  28. 28.

    17 U.S.C. § 101–02 (2006).

  29. 29.

    Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2011] UKSC 39, 118(vii).

  30. 30.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 22.

  31. 31.

    Mendis (2014) ‘“Clone Wars II”: Episode II’, 274.

  32. 32.

    Simon (2013) ‘When Copyright Can Kill’, 86–87.

  33. 33.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 23.

  34. 34.

    See: D. H. Brean (2013) ‘Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3D Printing: It’s No “Use”’ Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 23, 771, 781–82; D. Desai and G. Magliocca (2013–2014) ‘Patents, Meet Napster: 3D Printing and the Digitization of Things’ Georgetown Law Journal, 102, 1691.

  35. 35.

    See: Francis Day Hunter v Bron [1963] Ch. 587, 612 per Willmer LJ; Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music 420 F. Supp. 177 (S.D.N.Y. 1976).

  36. 36.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up.

  37. 37.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up, p. 10, citing Husky Injection Moulding System Ltd v R&D Tool and Engineering Company, 291 F.3d 780 (Fed Cir 2002).

  38. 38.

    Patents Act 1977, s 60(5)(a) and (b).

  39. 39.

    United Wire Ltd v Screen Repair Services (Scotland) Ltd, [2001] FSR 24.

  40. 40.

    Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1’, 160.

  41. 41.

    Desai and Magliocca (2013–2014) ‘Patents Meet Napster’.

  42. 42.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up, p. 14.

  43. 43.

    R. M. Ballardini, M. Norrgård and T. Minssen (2015) ‘Enforcing patents in the era of 3D printing’ Journal of Intellectual Property and Practice 10(11), 850–866.

  44. 44.

    Patents Act 1977, s 60(2).

  45. 45.

    Rotocrop v Genbourne [1982] FSR 241.

  46. 46.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 27.

  47. 47.

    Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1’, 161.

  48. 48.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 27.

  49. 49.

    Ballardini, Norrgård and Minssen (2015) ‘Enforcing patents in the era of 3D printing’.

  50. 50.

    See: M. Adams (2013) The ‘Third Industrial Revolution’: 3D Printing Technology and Australian Designs Law (Bachelor of Laws (Honours) thesis, Monash University).

  51. 51.

    Peter Bodum A/S v DKSH Australia Pty Ltd (2011) IPR 222. See: A. Scardamaglia (2012) ‘Protecting product shapes and features: beyond designs and trade marks in Australia’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 7 (3), 159–161.

  52. 52.

    Council Directive 98/71/EC of 13 October 1998 on the legal protection of designs [1998] OJ L289/28.

  53. 53.

    Council Regulation (EC) 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs [2002] OJ L3/1.

  54. 54.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 15.

  55. 55.

    Registered Designs Act 1949, s 1C (1).

  56. 56.

    Registered Designs Act 1949, s 7A(5).

  57. 57.

    Registered Designs Act 1949, s 1B(8).

  58. 58.

    Registered Designs Act 1949, s 7A(2)(a).

  59. 59.

    Registered Designs Act 1949, s 7A(2)(b).

  60. 60.

    Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1’, 164.

  61. 61.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 226(2).

  62. 62.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 213(2), (3)(a), and 3(c).

  63. 63.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 213(4).

  64. 64.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 s 226(1).

  65. 65.

    Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 s 226(1).

  66. 66.

    Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1’, 165.

  67. 67.

    Mendis (2013) ‘“The Clone Wars” – Episode 1’, 165.

  68. 68.

    Qualitex Co v Jacobson Products Co, 514 US 159, 162 (1995).

  69. 69.

    A. Scardamaglia (2015) ‘Flashpoints in 3D Printing and Trade Mark Law’ Journal of Law, Information & Science (forthcoming).

  70. 70.

    Trade Marks Act 1995, s 17.

  71. 71.

    Wal-Mart Stores v Samara Brothers, 529 US 205, 213–215.

  72. 72.

    Traffix Devices v Marketing Displays, 532 US 23, 33 (2001).

  73. 73.

    Desai and Magliocca (2013–2014) ‘Patents Meet Napster’, 1711.

  74. 74.

    Desai and Magliocca (2013–2014) ‘Patents Meet Napster’, 1711.

  75. 75.

    Weinberg (2010) It Will Be Awesome If They Don’t Screw It Up, p. 9.

  76. 76.

    Desai and Magliocca (2013–2014) ‘Patents Meet Napster’, pp. 1711–1712.

  77. 77.

    Scardamaglia, A. (2014) ‘Keywords, Trademarks and Search Engine Liability’ in R. Konig and M. Rasch (eds.) Society of the Query Reader: Reflections on Web Search (Amsterdam: Institute for Network Cultures).

  78. 78.

    Scardamaglia (2015) ‘Flashpoints in 3D Printing and Trade Mark Law’, 18.

  79. 79.

    Bradshaw, Bowyer and Haufe (2010) ‘The Intellectual Property Implications of Low-Cost 3D Printing’, 29.

  80. 80.

    Scardamaglia (2014) ‘Keywords, Trademarks and Search Engine Liability’.

  81. 81.

    Moilanen, Daly, Lobato and Allen (2015) ‘Cultures of Sharing in 3D Printing: What Can We Learn from the Licence Choices of Thingiverse Users?’.

  82. 82.

    D. Mendis and D. Secchi (2015) ‘A Legal and Empirical Study of 3D Printing Online Platforms and an Analysis of User Behaviour’ (Study I, UK Intellectual Property Office), 40–41.

  83. 83.

    P. Reeves and D. Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector: An Analysis of Six Case Studies’ (Study II, UK Intellectual Property Office).

  84. 84.

    Mendis and Secchi (2015) ‘A Legal and Empirical Study of 3D Printing Online Platforms and an Analysis of User Behaviour, 41.

  85. 85.

    J. Wong (2011) Penrose Triangle Illusion, MakerBot Thingiverse, http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6474, accessed 11 September 2015.

  86. 86.

    B. Rideout (2011) ‘Printing the Impossible Triangle: The Copyright Implications of Three-Dimensional Printing’ Journal of Business Entrepreneurship and the Law, 5(1), 160–177, 170.

  87. 87.

    Weinberg (2013) What’s The Deal With Copyright and 3D Printing, p.6.

  88. 88.

    C. Thompson (2012) ‘3D printing’s forthcoming legal morass’, Wired, http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-05/31/3d-printing-copyright, accessed 11 September 2015.

  89. 89.

    Brean (2013) ‘Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3D Printing’, 812.

  90. 90.

    J. Andersen and J. Howells (2014) ‘The Intellectual Property Rights Implications of Consumer 3D Printing’ (Thesis, Aarhus University Department of Business Administration School of Business and Social Sciences), p.32.

  91. 91.

    A. Kahler (2013) ‘I got a DMCA takedown notice from Makerbot/thingiverse for this’, Google+, https://plus.google.com/112825668630459893851/posts/e7sZ8Gw6umx, accessed 11 September 2015.

  92. 92.

    Brean (2013) ‘Asserting Patents to Combat Infringement via 3D Printing’.

  93. 93.

    D. Seng (2014) ‘The State of the Discordant Union: An Empirical Analysis of DMCA Takedown Notices’, Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 18(3), 370–473, 376.

  94. 94.

    F. Sosa (2015a) ‘Left Shark’, Thingiverse, http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:667127, accessed 11 September 2015.

  95. 95.

    F. Sosa (2015b) ‘Political sculptor retains legal representation and responds to Katy Perry’s Law Firm’, http://politicalsculptor.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/politicalsculptor-retains-legal.html, accessed 11 September 2015.

  96. 96.

    F. Sosa (2015c) ‘Prior Art claim’, http://politicalsculptor.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/prior-art-claim.html, accessed 11 September 2015; F. Sosa (2015d), ‘Katy Perry Law Firm responds and so does Political Sculptor’, http://politicalsculptor.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/katy-perry-law-firm-responds-and-so.html, accessed 11 September 2015.

  97. 97.

    Moilanen, Daly, Lobato and Allen (2015) ‘Cultures of Sharing in 3D Printing: What Can We Learn from the Licence Choices of Thingiverse Users?’.

  98. 98.

    Reeves and Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector’, pp. 27–28.

  99. 99.

    Reeves and Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector’, p. 41.

  100. 100.

    Reeves and Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector’, p. 42.

  101. 101.

    Reeves and Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector’, p. 65.

  102. 102.

    3ders (2014) ‘Authentise launches streaming service for 3D print files’, http://www.3ders.org/articles/20140404-authentise-launches-streaming-service-for-3d-print-files.html, accessed 11 September 2015.

  103. 103.

    Reeves and Mendis (2015) ‘The Current Status and Impact of 3D Printing Within the Industrial Sector’, p. 67.

  104. 104.

    See: N. Zingales (2012) ‘Digital Copyright, “Fair Access” and the Problem of DRM Misuse’ (Boston College Intellectual Property & Technology Forum).

  105. 105.

    D. Mac Sithigh (2013) ‘App law within: rights and regulation in the smartphone age’ International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 21(2), 154–186, 170.

  106. 106.

    Zittrain (2008) The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It, p. 177.

  107. 107.

    See: M. Weinberg (2015) ‘3D Printed Copyright Creep’, Techdirt, https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150427/10532430809/3d-printed-copyright-creep.shtml accessed 11 September 2015.

  108. 108.

    I. Graef, J. Verschakelen and P. Valcke (2013) ‘Putting the Right to Data Portability into a Competition Law Perspective’ Law: The Journal of the Higher School of Economics Annual Review, 53–63.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn, Australia

    Angela Daly

Authors
  1. Angela Daly
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Daly, A. (2016). ‘You Wouldn’t Download a Car’: 3D Printing and Intellectual Property. In: Socio-Legal Aspects of the 3D Printing Revolution. Palgrave Pivot, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51556-8_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51556-8_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51555-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51556-8

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation