Mazza 1

Brittany Mazza
CST 300 Writing Lab
Brian Robertson
20/10/2015
Intellectual Property and 3D Printing

As technology becomes more prevalent and affordable in society, so does

three-dimensional (3D) printing. 3D printers are close to becoming household appliances. The

way 3D printers are beginning to be used is affecting individual people and groups that hold

intellectual property (IP) rights. The 3D printer itself isnt an issue, its the 3D models that are

created to generate blueprints of objects for printing. These models are saved like any other

document to a computer, but theyre in a different format. The format is called

STereoLithography, or STL. Because theyre saved in a file format and built with a program on

the computer, theyre very simple to distribute across the internet. In fact, there are websites that

have already developed to help facilitate sharing 3D models and objects. Thingiverse and

Shapeways are a couple of examples. Its difficult to predict what 3D printers will be used for in

the future, but many of the items currently being modeled for use with these printers are

infringing on IP laws. There is an escalating conflict between intellectual property rights holders

and the engineers behind 3D models with regards to 3D printing. Whereas intellectual property

rights holders created the original idea of the model, laws regarding intellectual property rights

need to be redefined given that 3D models arent the same as as the actual products.

IP laws cover about anything a person can have an idea for. Theyre designed for those

ideas that are creative and not for something thats useful, like a chair or hinge on a door. There

are several types of laws that cover different aspects of intellectual property. The IP law

descriptions that follow are of those pertaining to the United States, since they differ from each
 Mazza 2

country to the next. However, keep in mind that, while similar, there are important differences

(like the duration that the IP right is placed on an item) and that products created in specific

countries may be under the particular IP laws of that country. Copyright laws protect the original

expression of an idea and exceed the length of the copyright holders life, or the last author if

there is more than one author, by seventy years (U.S. Copyright Office, 2011). It doesnt take

any effort for a person to hold copyrights on items since most of the items they create are

automatically covered by copyright laws. These include any drawings, stories, or sound

recordings. There are certain types of artistic expression that must be registered, like performing

arts or literary works (U.S. Copyright Office, 2012). Copyright laws are not usually applied to

physical objects, unlike patents. Patents protect innovations and their timespan is much shorter

than a copyright at about twenty years total (United States Code, 2011). They also require an

application and some cash to obtain. Jason Rueger suggests that people should plan to pay at

least $5,000 to obtain a quality patent on their item (2015). Trademarks protect logos and brands.

The length of the trademark ranges because they have to be renewed regularly to maintain

ownership. Someone would be infringing if they were to violate a copyright, trademark, or

patent, facing time in jail or large fines. These IP laws have been in place for many years and

have helped a lot of people protect their ideas. This has allowed the original creator to continue

benefiting, mostly financially, from their idea by not allowing someone, or some company, that

copied their idea to benefit from it, shutting down their competition in that domain. These people

have to actively ensure that someone doesnt infringe on their property, so that they can benefit

from being the sole owner of that idea. In addition to having to actively maintain IP ownership,

there are large costs associated with it. Companies pay about $12,000 per year to maintain a
 Mazza 3

patent, assuming they were approved for one, after fronting about $22,000 to apply for the patent

(Mearin, 2015). In the case of copyright infringement, the copyright holder must take those that

violated their copyright to federal court. Interestingly, the copyrighted idea can be used by other

parties if its in the scope of fair use. Fair use allows copyrighted material to be used if its for

purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for

classroom use), scholarship, or research (United States Code, 2013). So, the argument of fair

use is commonly used when defending a party that has been accused of infringing on an entitys

copyright due to the fact that it allows the party to work around the copyright law. Copyrights,

patents, and trademarks were a lot easier to maintain prior to the age of technology. More

specifically, the introduction of the internet has led us to share everything, from how were doing

that day on social media to music files on our computer (legally and illegally downloaded).

Models used for 3D printing arent exempt from the list of things that can be shared through the

internet and theyre bringing more and more attention to the gray area in regards to the

boundaries of these laws.

3D printers have also been around for a while, but have only recently had prospects of

becoming an item in everyday homes. As of 2014 there were about forty-four thousand 3D

printers used within homes globally, but that number is estimated to exceed one million units by

2018 (Juniper Research, 2014). Currently, 3D printers arent totally ready to be integrated into

everyday homes. The software to create 3D models for printing isnt intuitive (usually requiring

training), theyre not in the price range of an inkjet printer, and many people dont know what

theyd do with one, yet. Once these factors swing more in the favor of home use, those estimated

numbers may be a reality. Large manufacturing plants often use a particular method when 3D
 Mazza 4

printing, called an additive process. This additive process is powerful because they build layer

upon layer to create a final object, as opposed to cutting the object out of a larger material.

Creatively using tools to get into small or tricky corners to form an object is not an obstacle for a

3D printer. Lately, more individual consumers have had the opportunity to buy a 3D printer for

home use because prices for 3D printers have been dropping. Lucas Mearian says that prices

have dropped for 3D printers due to added competition and increased production, leading to the

release, in 2014, of a home use 3D printer that was listed at under $500 per unit (2014). By more

people having access to these printers, they can begin to consider all of the different items that

they can realistically print. One could imagine how having a 3D printer at home would allow

them to print spare parts to a broken appliance, create the perfect kitchen gadget for their needs,

or print the perfect party game for their upcoming game night. The general public is beginning to

create their own models for themselves, or to share with the world, and becoming more involved

with this technology, since they now have more access to it. Many of the 3D models created up

until this point have been with programs that are very technical and require a significant amount

of knowledge to use. However, newer programs are being introduced into 3D modeling, like

Google SketchUp, making creating models easier for those that arent as technically inclined.

Additionally, 3D scanners are being made available and they will allow a consumer to import a

model of any physical item. After the model is imported with a 3D scanner, a user will be able to

alter the object, make immediate copies, and distribute them online to the public. Unfortunately,

there are people that may not consider what IP laws theyre violating. So many items are

copyrighted (or protected in some way) that it can be difficult to tell if the item that youve made
 Mazza 5

falls under one. Regardless if these consumers are aware that theyre violating an IP law or not,

they could face serious repercussions.

There are two stakeholders involved in this issue. The first is the person, or company,

holding the IP rights, also called the IP owners. These parties are interested in maintaining their

intellectual property, primarily for financial gain. The second is the the person that is infringing

upon the IP law by creating a model of the original idea. The second party may or may not be

aware that theyre violating an IP law, just as the first party may not know if theyre covered by

IP laws or not. A guy named Jerry Fisher captured a replica of a statue of Moses, originally

created by Michelangelo, in photographs and created a 3D model of it. The statue is located at

Augustana College. The college sent him a takedown notice, which cited that it was covered by

copyright laws. He initially complied and removed the 3d model from the website it was listed

at, Thingiverse. Embarrassingly for Augustana College, the replica on their campus is, in fact,

not covered by copyright law at all (Hornick & Rosario, 2015). Fisher has since reuploaded his

3D model. There are a couple of interesting aspects to consider in this case. The first being that

they were claiming that they had a copyright for the statue on their grounds that was never an

original item by the nature of it being a replica. The second is that the original creator,

Michelangelo, has been dead for a hundreds of years, meaning that the original statue of Moses

is also not covered by copyright law. The college simply wasnt aware of what copyright laws

cover and dont cover. With respect to this incident, Michael Weinberg claims that when

situations like this occur, it takes away the publics right to access public domain works

(2015). Making uninformed decisions and accusations like these can have a negative impact on

the freedom and access that the general public enjoys, but many of these poor judgements are
 Mazza 6

brought to light and reversed by the discussion surrounding them internet, as this is what

happened in the case of the 3D model of Moses.

Many people, guided by their own creativity, have designed objects from raw materials

and have those items copyrighted, trademarked, or patented in order to protect the item that they

have designed. Andrew Mitrak explains how the widespread use of 3D modeling allows people

to design their own objects that violate IP law and how they can sell them, or upload them for

free, and [that] this is a real threat to IP owners (2014). Those that hold the IP rights are

threatened by the 3D modelers because of the accessibility of their product in a space that they

didnt explicitly put there themselves, as well as the fact that someone else is making a profit off

of what theyve created. Additionally, its possible that the IP owners dont know that their item,

or duplicate of their item, is being distributed on the internet at all. IP owners would like to

control how their objects are distributed, so that they can be the sole party to gain from them

financially. When a similar product, or their own product, is being marketed online, theyre

losing potential profits. For an individual, or a small business owner, having a product publically

accessible and easily reproducible, that one did not grant permission for, can completely halt and

future business prospects. Previously, for those people with IP rights on physical objects, digital

photographs of their products were their only concern in the technology realm that was possible

of violating their IP rights, but now they cant ignore that their products can be identically

duplicated with a 3D model and printed out in someones home. The intellectual property rights

holders have to keep track of the infringements on their intellectual property and take them to

federal court, but now they additionally need to watch for 3D models of their items that can be

used to print duplicates. This additional area makes it much more difficult to keep track of ones
 Mazza 7

own intellectual property, especially if they are not a large company. If the laws regarding

intellectual property and 3D models remain in a gray area, illegal sharing of object models will

be difficult to simultaneously control while still gaining profits from them, like copyrighted

music has been. From 1999 until 2013, music sales in the U.S. ... dropped 53 percent, from

$14.6 billion to $7.0 billion in 2013 (Recording Industry Association of America, n.d.). Its

likely that we will see a similar issue, but this time in relation to 3D printing and physical

objects. The models are intentionally made to produce duplicates from either an item that has

been scanned in or one created in a 3D modeling program. The printed item is likely to be a copy

of an original item and should be treated with the same intellectual property laws that the original

item has. Unfortunately, the models used are not the exact same objects and cant be treated as

so, yet.

3D models are created for a variety of reasons that range from making a profit to paying

tribute to a person or thing. While some people create 3D models of objects protected by IP laws

items intentionally, others do so unintentionally. Steve Henn explains that many of the items

people are designing, copying and printing on Thingiverse like Star Wars action figures or

Pixar's famous lamp are actually protected by copyright (Henn, 2013). In the examples Henn

lists, they are icons taken from the media that are usually created by a fan. The fans may believe

that theyre supporting the entertainment that they enjoy and also producing items that other fans

may enjoy using. The companies that own these rights havent produced the items that their

supporters would like to own or see for sale, so theyve been created by their fans. Some people

create models that incorporate things from their favorite shows, where they arent intending to

step on anyones toes, but rather display their excitement and share their creation with the
 Mazza 8

fandom. Nothing is stopping these people from creating models based on the entertainment that

they enjoy, but IP laws impact the distribution of the digital files and products made from the

digital files. In other cases, there may be fans that cant afford to enjoy the exclusive items that

are for sale, so knockoffs are produced. This isnt a new idea. There are many counterfeit items

that are sold, which replicate the original and look nearly identical. Counterfeiting ranges from

replicas of rare wine bottles to designer handbags. However, several items are extremely difficult

to make without knowing how to craft them. Items manufactured with large equipment could be

exceptionally difficult to copy. John hornick states, as 3D printers get better and better, faster

and faster, and more and more consumer friendly, anyone can become a counterfeiter (2015).

Once applications are produced and 3D scanners are introduced at an affordable price, it will be

easy for everyday people to replicate an original item. These implications dont stop at the

person that has created the model, as they will trickle down to the consumer who may or may not

know if they have an original item or not. There are aspects of this emerging industry that we

havent begun to imagine, but with that, we will also have the unintended, like democratized

counterfeiting and ubiquitous illegal possession (Reichental, 2014). If IP owners continue

fighting for their ideas, perhaps they will be able to curb the amount of people that would own

their item illegally and they will not have lost that profit. Unfortunately, in some cases the

original copyright owner isnt alive and their heirs are fighting to keep their copyright property

on behalf of the original author. This happened when a couple spent a month creating a 3D

model of a hand-carved chess set, originally belonging to Marcel Duchamp (who passed almost

five decades prior), that they had listed on the website Thingiverse. They were issued a Cease

and Desist notice. While there wouldnt have been any problems if the set was carved and
 Mazza 9

registered in the United States due to timing, it was under patent laws in France that were still

active. They have since removed the item from Thingiverse (Norton, 2015). Copyrighted,

patented and trademarked items are great on their own and people would love to have that item

(like the chess set) in their home, or to expand upon someone elses idea, but theyre protected

by copyright laws. 3D model designers shouldnt have to worry about violating intellectual

property laws, because theyre making models of the items and those original items werent

designed to be printed like the 3D printers will be creating.

Society has already began to adopt an idea of a sharable community with things like

crowd sourced volunteers to help blind people identify things in the world, couchsurfing, and

renting each others cars. Its likely that the 3D printing industry will play a large role in

furthering the sharable community. Allowing all of the IP infringement lawsuits toward

manufacturers of 3D printers, 3D modelers, aggregators of 3D models, and end users will stifle

the pace of our innovation. Lucas Matheson suggests that if theyre smart, companies with

prized intellectual properties will create popular objects people want to print (Matheson, 2015).

Ideally, companies would be able to do this and keep up with the pace of their consumers, but

its more probable that their consumer base will demand more than they can produce. This can

easily lead to the consumers taking it into their own hands to produce the items that theyd like.

What would be more ideal is if the company were to license or sell their own 3D model for the

consumer to use at their own discretion, but the consumers would probably have to agree to not

resell the 3D model or items made by the 3D model when downloading the product. 3D printer

companies may also find themselves in some trouble if users are able to print entire 3D printer

replicas from a single printer. In addition to worrying if consumers would rather print their own
 Mazza 10

3D printer, these companies could also struggle to sell their own product to creative consumers if

they demonstrate using the printer by printing an item covered by intellectual property law and

are sued. However, we havent seen this become an issue yet for the 3D printing world with

respect to IP.

IP laws can be difficult to navigate, especially when trying to tie designs in a computer

with actual, physical objects. What we really need to consider is if the item was designed with

the intention to be downloaded by users and reproduced by a 3D printer. If an item was designed

to be distributed and purchased through a manufacturing process, it is not the same as a digital

file thats designed to be printed. Software patents need to be separate from patents on a

manufactured product. Because of the current restrictions within the intellectual property laws,

there are people that are hesitant to get involved with 3D modeling for 3D printers. Its

unfortunate because of the innovation that were missing out on, particularly regarding the

distribution of digital products. Regulating patents on software is already difficult to do

internationally and regulating software thats based on an item with IP laws is even more

difficult due to the variance in IP laws or nonexistence of them. Caroline Allen and John Brunner

go on to support this by explaining how it is harder to restrict such sales geographically and 3D

printing files are likely to be legally provided to third parties in countries in which the rights

owner has no patent (2014). Improvements can be made upon any idea that will facilitate

growth on that item. Michael Weinberg explains that the ability to copy and replicate is the

ability to infringe on copyright, patent, and trademark. But the ability to copy and replicate is the

ability to create, expand upon, and innovate (Weinberg, 2010). People learn from each other

and our society grows when given more support to learn from each other. Copyrights, patents,
 Mazza 11

and trademarks are man made ideas from the past that should be reevaluated to better fit how our

society is operating, particularly in relation to the technical advances weve seen in recent

decades.

To continue to develop our sharable community, individuals and companies alike

shouldnt be so focused on IP laws. They could create magnificent and meaningful things

together. Consider the how well the open source community does when they work together.

Companies have successfully listed projects publicly and allowed their technical fans to get

involved, helping them produce a better product and appeal to a wider audience. Regarding how

companies can stay prominent while 3D printing becomes more common in homes, Lyndsey

Gilpin says that some [companies] are trying to build partnerships with 3D printing services to

allow for experimentation with patents and designs in order to stay ahead of the game (2014).

Companies can also become more involved in the 3D printing by selling the licenses to print

their products, selling the 3D models directly to their consumers, offering to print replacement

parts for their products and hiring new 3D modelers. Perhaps they could follow YouTubes

model that they have for the people that produce their content, but instead of the product being

videos its 3D models, where the 3D modelers would get a portion of the proceeds. However, in

the interim between the independent ownership and sharing community there does need to be

some regulation. New policies need to be added, and some removed, to promote innovation and

encourage a community of sharing. Someone needs to own the product (at least for now). The

item created by the IP owner should still remain owned by that IP owner, but the 3D model of

that item that was created by someone else should belong to the modeler. The printed artifact

should be owned by the party that printed it, assumably by purchasing the 3D model from the
 Mazza 12

modeler and printing it themselves or by purchasing it through a website where that 3D modeler

uploaded it to and then having the third party that they purchased through print it. The consumer

has the choice in this situation to purchase the manufactured product (if it exists) or purchase the

3D model and print it themselves. Eventually, we will begin to see the original creators of items

marking their object in some way to be able to distinguish their object from the 3D printed one.

Jean-Jacques Neuer suggests that we need to invent an electronic tagging process for the works

(barcodes, electronic chip etc.) and most of all, a kind of international central registry on the

model of domain names in order to know which products are the original product and which

arent (Neuer, 2015). The idea of tagging manufactured or original works are an ideal route,

since this wouldnt halt the sharable community when it comes to 3D printing.

3D modeling and printing can be regulated in ways that would protect society and not

stifle innovation, taking into account what the designer originally intended for their work. Just

because Marcel Duchamp carved a chess set out of wood decades ago and is covered by

copyright shouldnt mean that the copyright for it covers the 3D model of the set. Weinberg

claims that courts must find a way to provide copyright protection to qualifying works without

inadvertently using 3D printing and digital designs to expand copyrights scope (2013). Music

entertainment groups have seen a similar transition in recent years after dealing with piracy

issues. Groups, companies and individual people shouldnt be able to completely own an entire

idea, perhaps they should own certain elements that pertain to that idea. It would be much more

reasonable for the courts to consider the intent as well as the design of the initial physical or

digital item.
 Mazza 13

References

Allen, C., & Brunner, J. (2014, October 27). Intellectual Property Rights and 3D Printing: A

Threat or an Opportunity? Retrieved from

http://www.mondaq.com/x/330986/Patent/Intellectual+Property+Rights+And+3D+Printi

ng+A+Threat+Or+An+Opportunity

Gilpin, L. (2014, August 1). How 3D printing is building a new future. Retrieved from

http://www.zdnet.com/article/how-3d-printing-is-building-a-new-future/

Henn, S. (Host). (2013, February 19). As 3D printing becomes more accessible copyright

questions arise. In NPR (Producer), Morning Edition. Retrieved from

http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2013/02/19/171912826/as-3-d-printing-be

come-more-accessible-copyright-questions-arise

Hornick, J. (2014, February 5). How to tell whats real and whats fake in a 3D printed world.

Retrieved from

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/02/05/tell-whats-real-whats-fake-3d-printed-world/

Hornick, J., & Rosario, C. (2015, July 28). 3D Scanning: The Achilles Heel of IP Protection for

3D Printing. Retrieved from

http://www.finnegan.com/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=acf986f9-9609-4bd

d-850b-35976e317d09

Juniper Research. (2014, April 22). 3D printers for home-use to exceed 1 million unit sales

globally by 2018, finds Juniper Research [Press release]. Retrieved from

http://www.juniperresearch.com/press-release/3d-printing-pr1
 Mazza 14

Matheson, L. (2015, October 8). The future of 3D printing: Smarter IP strategies, less lawsuits.

Retrieved from

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/10/08/the-future-of-3d-printing-smarter-ip-strategies-

less-lawsuits/

Mearian, L. (2015, May 20). Patent trolls may be preparing to target 3D printing. Retrieved from

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2923949/3d-printing/patent-trolls-may-be-prepari

ng-to-target-3d-printing.html

Mearian, L. (2014, January 9). 3D printer prices drop, food printers arrive at CES. Retrieved

from

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2486492/emerging-technology/3d-printer-prices-

drop--food-printers-arrive-at-ces.html

Mitrak, A. (2014, June 4). 3D printings implications for intellectual property [Video file].

Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/97352606

Neuer, J. (2015, January 12). What is the authenticity of a work in the era of 3D? Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeanjacques-neuer/the-authenticity-of-a-work-of-art-in-th

e-era-of-3d_b_6395958.html

Norton, Q. (2015, September 8). The international fight over Marcel Duchamp's chess set.

Retrieved from

http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/09/the-international-fight-over-marc

el-duchamps-chess-set/404248/

United States Code, 2006 Edition, Supplement 5, Title 35 - PATENTS, 35 U.S. Code 154.

(2011).
 Mazza 15

United States Code, 2012 Edition, Supplement 1, Title 17 - COPYRIGHTS, 17 U.S.C. 107.

(2013).

Reichental, A. (2014, March). Avi Reichental: Whats next in 3D printing. Retrieved from

https://www.ted.com/talks/avi_reichental_what_s_next_in_3d_printing

Recording Industry Association of America. (n.d.). Scope of the problem. Retrieved from

https://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_selector=piracy-online-scope-of-the-pr

oblem

Rueger, J. (2015, January 27). How much does a patent cost? Retrieved from

http://fitsmallbusiness.com/how-much-does-a-patent-cost/

U.S. Copyright Office. (2011). Duration of copyright (Circular 15a). Retrieved from

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf

U.S. Copyright Office. (2012). Copyright basics (Circular 1). Retrieved from

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

Weinberg, M. (2010, November) It will be awesome if they dont screw it up: 3D printing,

intellectual property, and the fight over the next great disruptive technology. Retrieved

from https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/docs/3DPrintingPaperPublicKnowledge.pdf

Weinberg, M. (2013, January). Whats the deal with copyright and 3D printing? Retrieved from

https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/What's%20the%20Deal%20with%20Copyright_

%20Final%20version2.pdf

Weinberg, M. (2015, January 22). Cultural institutions behaving badly: Stupid reactions to 3D

scanning . Retrieved from

 Mazza 16

https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/cultural-institutions-behaving-badly-s

tupid-reactions-to-3d-scanning-and-co