
3-D Printing's Legal Morass - ColinWright
http://www.wired.com/design/2012/05/3-d-printing-patent-law/
======
zephjc
If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^,
then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing
technology become as cheap and elaborate as possible, as quickly as possible.

The only bottleneck to providing material objects for free or next to free
should be in finding raw materials that can be printed out, and as a start,
there's lots of that filling up the world's landfills.

Where sharing music and movies was pretty much zero real gain for file-sharers
(you can live without the latest Lady Gaga album or Transformer movie), having
access to super cheap _working_ replicas of things like refrigerators, water
purifiers, clothing, house-building materials, etc., can dramatically affect
countless lives, especially in developing countries.

The rug absolutely must be pulled out from under the feet of the manner in
which material objects are created and distributed, hopefully diminishing the
number of have-nots in the world.

^ Not necessarily real energy->matter conversion, but something nearly as
cheap and elaborate.

~~~
crusso
> If you view 3D printing as a baby-step to Trek-like replicator technology^,
> then you may see that its more of a moral imperative that 3D printing
> technology become as cheap and elaborate as possible, as quickly as
> possible.

Nah, that's faith-speak. We don't have any idea if this technology will go
much further beyond what is currently possible. This could be the "flying car"
of the next 100 years that never fulfills its promise.

While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal
rules to accomodate it, what suffers? What great technologies and solutions
are killed because you (and other true believers) have decided that this is
the thing we should all worship and sacrifice everything to achieve? What of
our liberties go away because you have a vision?

3D printing is very cool and I see great things coming from it, but it's not
Star Trek. It's not Star Wars. It's not the Matrix. It is what it is and we'll
see where it goes. In the meantime, my interest is in protecting the free
market principles that have consistently created the greatest good for the
most people. That means respecting some level of Intellectual Property rights
in other markets and not just steam-rolling some game-making company because a
guy with a 3D printer wants to use this humanity-saving tool to print out some
versions of legally trademarked action figures.

~~~
Bjartr
>This could be the "flying car" of the next 100 years that never fulfills its
promise.

Although I understand your point here, I thought I'd point out that this is a
weak analogy because the problem with the flying car isn't that it's not
technologically possible (it is, relatively trivially these days in fact) the
problem is that it's a stupid idea. People have bad enough accidents when
dealing with the two dimensions on a road, there's no way to make the
technology safe enough to achieve the kind of market penetration the
traditional automobile has. Without that the market forces for scaling the
infrastructure necessary to produce and maintain such a 'fleet' don't exist.

>While you declare it a "moral imperative" and we bend all laws and societal
rules to accommodate it, what suffers?

Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by
shifting the means of productions to individuals.

>What great technologies and solutions are killed

Those that are not pursued because there is not enough money in them under the
new system. As opposed to those that are not pursued because there is not
enough money in them in the existing system.

>What of our liberties go away because you have a vision?

The ability to make a bet that your creative work will be a success without
the danger of someone in a better position to make money from the idea doing
so. In fact we are already seeing the beginnings of a return to the modes of
commerce prior to intellectual property laws such as an artisan being
commissioned ahead of time to produce something by way of tools like
Kickstarter which finally attempt to solve the discrepancy between our ability
to produce and distribute and our ability to communicate.

>my interest is in protecting the free market principles that have
consistently created the greatest good for the most people

My interest is in creating even greater good for even more people. Now, I'm
not so arrogant to claim I know these new modes of commerce are better
outright, I'm just saying that we don't actually know and we should give them
their fair shot. Why should we settle when we could do even better?

wow did I get off topic and start ranting or what?

~~~
crusso
> Those that want to continue to rely on a market model that is obsoleted by
> shifting the means of productions to individuals.

That's a huge and unfounded assumption, both on where this technology is going
and on its impact on society.

For the foreseeable future, 3D printing only reshapes raw materials. It
doesn't create matter from energy. It doesn't transmute elements. It will
allow people with the means to purchase 3D printers and the raw materials the
ability to print new forms of those raw materials. It will be really neat to
see what people do with them, but it's kind of like saying that Home Depot
should have eliminated capitalism since it gave the means of production to
many individuals who didn't have it before.

Plus, you have to remember that the "means of production" is a moving target
since what people need to produce is relative. As the 3D printer is able to
create some base consumer goods, people will find new "needs". In Africa,
people talk about food as a "need". In Western countries, people talk about
access to the Internet as a "need". As some base needs are taken care of
through technology, more will open up. There will always be new ways for
industrious individuals to satisfy wants and needs through entrepreneurialism.

------
mistercow
I get depressed whenever I read about these people who get bitten by the DMCA
and then don't do the 5 minutes of internet research needed to figure out how
to fight it.

It sounds to me like this guy had a clear case of DMCA abuse. If he designed
the models himself, from scratch, then the best claim Games Workshop could
have against him would be trademark infringement, and that's not what the DMCA
is for. Therefore, all he has to do is send Thingiverse a counter-notification
and, unless Games Workshop files a lawsuit (which they almost certainly
won't), Thingiverse will restore the content in 14 days (they are _required_
to do this in order to receive safe harbor protection under the DMCA).

Chilling Effects even has a page for automatically generating these counter-
notifications, so there's really no excuse for not protecting yourself from
abuse: <http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf>

~~~
grabeh
I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-
by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had
sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken
place.

Also, contrast this story with the outcry over EA's alleged copying of GW
models albeit digitally.

[http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc...](http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/s4s7f/tank_in_new_cc_mmo_is_a_baneblade_from_40k/)

~~~
nl
_I think it would be useful to see the his models and relevant GW models side-
by-side to assess whether any similarities are present. He has obviously had
sight of GW models which would allow GW to argue a form of copying has taken
place._

You probably should read the article. Even if there were similarities it
wouldn't matter.

Physical objects can be protected by (normal) patents, which protect physical
functionality or design patents[1]. Even if GW did have a design patent (which
is fairly rare) then it would only protect against identical copies. The
standard of proof for design patent violation is that the new object could be
mistaken as the original (not "has some similar features"), so provided they
weren't copies of GW models then he was probably safe.

The article says "so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-
style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank", which sounds to me like
he was on very safe grounds.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_patent>

~~~
mistercow
The article tries to imply that 3D designs cannot be copyrighted, but this is
incorrect. If the design is _functional_ , it cannot be copyrighted, but if it
is a work of art, it is still protected by copyright. So if you carve a
statue, and I make and distribute copies of that statue without your
permission, I am violating your copyright. If I alter your design, but copy
substantial portions in a way that does not constitute fair use, I am also
violating your copyright by producing a derivative work.

In contrast, design patents only apply to _functional_ items. The classic
example is the Coca-Cola bottle. Coke's patent on that is not on the invention
of a bottle, or on a useless bauble, but on the ornamental design of a
functional item. If the bottle were not intended to hold liquid, but were just
a pretty object, it _would_ be eligible for copyright, but not a design
patent.

I think it would be hard to argue that Warhammer miniatures are functional
items. Rather, they are non-functional works of art, and therefore fall under
the jurisdiction of copyright. So if you make your own figures based
sufficiently on those made by GW, you are creating a derivative work, and
violating their copyright.

------
iwwr
This may be a storm in a teacup. 3D printing doesn't make sense for mass
manufacturing, nor in the possible future lest for at least one order of
magnitude increase in speed and cost of raw materials. We're still talking of
hours to build a small figurine and $50/kg in material prices. If we move out
of plastic and into metal, the process is again 100 times slower (or very
energy intensive) and the machines are priced in multiples of $100K.

~~~
bradleyland
This is dangerous thinking, IMO. Look at where we are with other media (music
and movies).

Years ago, the same thinking was applied to music and movies. "Well, this
isn't a big problem, because duplicating the content is expensive and time
consuming." The technology advanced, and now copying digital goods is very
nearly free from a time and money standpoint. Should we wait for things to get
as sideways as they are with music and movies before we put some weight behind
reform?

~~~
smacktoward
The difference is that music and movies can be translated into digital format,
which makes copying effectively free. 3D printing is physical, not digital.
Every copy you make will require raw materials and will cause wear and tear on
the printer. That creates costs.

Those costs will probably come down over time, of course, but nowhere near as
fast as the cost of digital duplication has. The price of plastic doesn't obey
Moore's Law.

~~~
vecinu
Music and movies used to only be available on physical media until internet
connections became quick enough to be able to download files from
geographically anywhere.

One could say the same for CD/DVD/Blu-Ray burners...one needs energy to run
the burner and a laser to inscribe the data onto the physical media.

I think the same logic applies to 3-D printers.

~~~
stan_rogers
_I think the same logic applies to 3-D printers._

How? In the one case, you have a situation where it is no longer necessary to
have (or produce) the "thing" in order to use it. That is to say that you no
longer need the CD/DVD or other physical medium in order to use the bits they
carried.

Printed (or otherwise rapidly prototyped) physical artifacts are quite a
different thing. Having the 3D model or CNC cutting paths of a physical thing
is in no way equal, or even equivalent, to having the thing itself. If the
time and cost involved in making a replica is greater than the time and cost
of popping down to the shop to pick up the genuine article or of ordering it
online and waiting for delivery, then printing's not at all cost-effective.

That's not to say that 3D printing (or subtractive RP) has no utility at all.
One of its advantages is that it can be used as a relatively cheap substitute
for maintaining parts inventories over extended periods of time—but only for
some types of parts. And it is a good way of distributing low-volume
decorative works, since the print price is not much higher than the per-unit
price of low-volume tooling. (Or at least it will be when the resolution is
sufficiently high, since most users are not likely to want to spend a lot of
time chasing and filleting their print results.)

------
alexqgb
A fine example of a headline editor stating one thing ("morass!") and the
author stating another ("probably no morass right now, but in a corrupt
congress, that could change.")

~~~
debacle
It is a legal morass, we just are only on the edges of it now.

The 3D printing battle will be bloodier than the digital copying battle,
precisely because there is much more to lose.

~~~
planetguy
I have my doubts. I think there's more money in selling copyrighted content
than in selling the fairly narrow range of products that can be produced with
a 3D printer.

Looking around the room right now, the number of objects here that could be
cranked out with any 3D printer is pretty darn small. For those that could, I
doubt it would be any cheaper for me to 3D-print the darn thing, even if I
already had the 3D printer, than it was for me to buy the real mass-produced
deal.

The article's example of "little figurines" is the only example I can think
of, and the little figurine industry isn't large compared to music or movies.

~~~
joshuahedlund
The range of products that can be produced with a 3D printer today may be
significantly smaller than the range of products that can be produced with a
3D printer in X years.

------
grabeh
The article suggests that it is preferable to have an action under patent
infringement rather than under copyright infringement because patents expire.

I think this is a gross over-simplification of the matter as if I were
advising a manufacturer I would prefer to go down the route of copyright
infringement as it would be a cheaper option than full-scale patent
litigation.

Although this would be with the slight caveat that copyright infringement
requires evidence of actual copying and will not succeed if independent
creation can be shown.

I think it essentially still boils down to whether copying in this instance
has actually taken place. In the instant case, I would love to see a
comparison of the Games Workshop creations and the third party's creations. My
guess is the third party works were inspired by GW rather than being
substantially the same. In any event, it seems heavy handed of GW.

I would say overall that patent references are a red herring. In the instant
case, GW will not hold a patent over each of the models of course. The focus
on 3-D printing is interesting, but again it boils down to whether copying has
taken place.

I would also add that under UK law, this would also be potentially dealt with
under design rights law where protection is far more limited. In fact, because
of mass production nature of the models, a claim would have to based on design
right law rather than copyright, as they would not qualify as sculptures in my
view.

------
ctdonath
We've been thru all these battles before. Look for the viable/profitable
solutions already achieved.

How long to "iTunes Match" for MakerBot et al? 3D-scan all your stuff, your
rough scan is "matched" to an existing high-res model on an all-licensing-
settled server, so you can download and "print" all the copies you want for
private use.

~~~
reustle
> so you can _buy_ , download and "print".

If we're already scanning it, why not just replicate the original?

~~~
grabeh
I believe in the same way as iTunes Match works, you would be legitimising
your own creations to ensure that they were free from potential infringement
actions.

~~~
ktizo
Printing for your own use is non-infringing anyway, and a 3d model of an
object is effectively a drawing of it and so therefore the creator of the
drawing holds the copyright, not the holder of any patent of the object.
Copyrights can be infringed, but only where there is copyrighted detail, which
is usually only an issue for things like toys and fashion.

~~~
grabeh
> Printing for your own use is non-infringing

This may be true in relation to fair use/fair dealing exceptions, but not as a
general statement.

> 3D model is effectively a drawing of it

They may hold the copyright in it, but it can still infringes a pre-existing
third party design right.

> Copyrights can be infringed, but only where there is copyrighted detail

I don't understand what you mean by this. If something attracts the protection
of copyright, it will be infringed if the usual tests are satisfied - where
does 'copyrighted detail' come into it?

------
mellis
For more details, see "It Will Be Awesome if They Don't Screw it Up: 3D
Printing" by Michael Weinberg: [http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-
awesome-if-they-do...](http://www.publicknowledge.org/it-will-be-awesome-if-
they-dont-screw-it-up)

~~~
brohee
Also "Rule 34" by Charles Stross is a pretty good novel about some of the
consequences of personal 3D printing being pushed underground by regulation.

~~~
GenericAlias
Don't forget "Makers" by Cory Doctorow, which discusses some of the legal
implications of personal 3D printing as both an attraction and as a way of
cheaply producing a variety of things. <http://craphound.com/makers/download/>

------
zemo
the article fails to mention the food industry, despite the fact that the
French Culinary Institute is very publicly developing food printers. You can
imagine how Nabisco will feel when you can download the plans to print out
Oreos in your own home.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
How do they feel knowing that I can bake them at home right now?
[http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/oreo-cookies-
recipe/index...](http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/oreo-cookies-
recipe/index.html)

------
ktizo
I think of this as more of _Patent Law's 3d Printing Morass._

