Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

For the first 25 years, three-dimensional printing was the domain of industrial manufacturing and engineering. Through the open-source movement and peer production, this disruptive technology has become more widely available. This article considers how the future development and use of three-dimensional printing may be facilitated or inhibited through intellectual property law and practice. Using a combination of technical, legal, and policy analysis, we conclude that the potential for patent infringement is a primary issue in the continued development of three-dimensional printing technology. When it comes to the printed objects themselves, copyright issues will be the main focus of this debate. As these issues become more pervasive, some copyright holders will find technology-based solutions to enforce copyright laws and restrict printing activities. A common recourse is digital rights management as a means for protecting intellectual property, but its use has the potential for imposing unnecessarily stringent limitations on the use of three-dimensional printing.

Keywords

Copyright digital rights management fair use innovation intellectual property open source participatory culture patent peer production three-dimensional printing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

3D Systems Inc. v Formlabs Inc. et al . (2012). Available at: http://www.law360.com/cases/50abdf2de607d31e1f000001

Boyle

(2003) The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems 66 (Winter–Spring): 33–74.

Brean

(2013) Asserting patents to combat infringement via 3D Printing: it’s no “use”. Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal 23(3): 771–814.

Coleman

(2009) Code is speech: legal tinkering, expertise and protest among free and open source developers. Cultural Anthropology 24(3): 420–454.

Compilations and Derivative Works (1976) 17 US Code § 103. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/103

Creative Commons (2013) About the licenses. Available at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

Crump

(1992) Apparatus and method for creating three-dimensional objects. Patent 5121329, USA.

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 1998. Available at: http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/hr2281.pdf

Digital Watermarking Alliance (2010) The case for content identification. Available at: http://www.digitalwatermarkingalliance.org/docs/papers/DWA_WhitePaper_Case4ContentID.pdf

10.

Doctorow

(2013) Get ready for the big bang as 3D printing patents expire. In: Boing Boing. Available at: http://boingboing.net/2013/07/22/get-ready-for-the-big-bang-as.html (accessed 23 April 2014).

11.

Doherty

(2012) Downloading infringement: patent law as a roadblock to the 3D printing revolution. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 26(1): 353–373.

12.

The Economist (2012) Solid print. In: The Economist. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/21552892 (accessed 17 October 2013).

13.

EFF (2013) EFF’s fight for open 3D printing continues at ask patents. In: Deeplinks. Available at: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/03/effs-fight-open-3d-printing-continues-askpatentscom (accessed 13 May 2013).

14.

Giseburt

(2012) 3D Systems suing Formlabs and Kickstarter for patent infringement. In: MAKE. Available at: http://blog.makezine.com/2012/11/21/3d-systems-suing-formlabs-and-kickstarter-for-patent-infringement/ (accessed 30 November 2012).

15.

Hess

Ostrom

(2006) Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. Boston, MA: The MIT Press.

16.

Hull

(1986) Apparatus for production of three-dimensional objects by stereolithography. Patent 4575330, USA.

17.

Infringement of Patent (1952) 35 US Code § 271. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/271

18.

Jenkins

(2009) Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media education for the 21st century. Available at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/sites/default/files/titles/free_download/9780262513623_Confronting_the_Challenges.pdf (accessed 5 June 2013).

19.

Kelty

(2005) Geeks, social imaginaries and recursive publics. Cultural Anthropology 20(2): 185–214.

20.

Kuznetsov

Paulos

(2010) Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In: NordiCHI 2010 proceedings of the 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries, Reykjavik, Iceland, 16–20 October, pp. 295–304. New York: ACM.

21.

Leadbeater

(2005) The era of open innovation. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/charles_leadbeater_on_innovation (accessed 6 February 2014).

22.

Leahy-Smith America Invents Act 2011. Available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr1249enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr1249enr.pdf

23.

Lessig

(2004) Free Culture. New York: Penguin Press.

24.

MakerBot (2012) Let’s try that again. Available at: http://www.MakerBot.com/blog/2012/09/24/lets-try-that-again/

25.

Mazer v Stein (1954) 347 US 201. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/347_US_201.htm

26.

Proffitt

(2012) How open source hardware is driving the 3D-printing industry. In: ReadWrite. Available at: http://readwrite.com/2012/07/03/how-open-source-hardware-is-driving-the-3d-printing-industry (accessed 17 January 2013).

27.

RepRap (2014) RepRapGPLLicence. Available at: http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRapGPLLicence

28.

Ritzer

Jurgenson

(2010) Production, consumption, prosumption: the nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer.” Journal of Consumer Culture 10(1): 13–36.

29.

Schneier

(2005) Sony’s DRM rootkit: the real story. In: Schneier on Security. Available at: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2005/11/sonys_drm_rootk.html (accessed 17 January 2013).

30.

Shapeways (2013) Terms and conditions. Available at: http://www.shapeways.com/terms_and_conditions

31.

Shirky

(2005) Institutions vs. collaboration. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration (accessed 6 February 2014).

32.

Sony Corp of America v Universal City Studios Inc . (1984) 464 US 417. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/464_US_417.htm

33.

Subject Matter of Copyright (1976) 17 US Code § 102. Available at: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/102

34.

Suehle

(2011) The DRM graveyard. In: Opensource. Available at: http://opensource.com/life/11/11/drm-graveyard-brief-history-digital-rights-management-music (accessed 7 June 2013)

35.

Thingiverse (2013) Lets look at your things. Available at: http://www.thingiverse.com/apps/lets-look-at-your-things

36.

Thingiverse (2014) About. Available at: http://www.thingiverse.com/about

37.

Thompson

(2012) Clive Thompson on 3-D printing’s legal morass. Wired, 30 May. Available at: http://www.wired.com/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/

38.

US Copyright Office (2012a) Copyright basics. Available at: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

39.

US Copyright Office (2012b) Copyright claims in architectural works. Available at: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf

40.

US Copyright Office (2012c) Fair use. Available at: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

41.

US Copyright Office (2012d) How long does copyright protection last? Available at: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-duration.html

42.

US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (2012) Types of patents. Available at: http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/patdesc.htm

43.

USPTO Patent Database (2013) Searches for 3D Systems, Stratasys and MakerBot. Available at: http://patft.uspto.gov/ (accessed 22 October 2013).

44.

Weinberg

(2012) Michael Weinberg on 3D printing. Surprisingly Free, 17 January. Available at: http://surprisinglyfree.com/2012/01/17/michael-weinberg/ (accessed 15 March 2013).

45.

Williams & Wilkins Co v The United States (1976) 487 F2d 1345.

46.

World Intellectual Property Organization (2014) What is IP? Available at: http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/

47.

Zwick

Bonsu

Darmody

(2008) Putting consumers to work: “co-creation” and new marketing govern-mentality. Journal of Consumer Culture 8(2): 183–197.

The future of three-dimensional printing: Intellectual property or intellectual confinement?

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References