Activities of Marie-Christine BOUTONNET related to 2017/2007(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Three-dimensional printing: intellectual property rights and civil liability (short presentation) FR
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on three-dimensional printing, a challenge in the fields of intellectual property rights and civil liability PDF (291 KB) DOC (61 KB)
Amendments (16)
Amendment 21 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the majority of the 3D- printed products being created are currently prototypes;
Amendment 36 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a reduction in the number of intermediaries wouldhich might stem from 3D printing for commercial purposes may eventually give companies the opportunity to repatriate offshore production activities; whereas repatriation could help to maintain the added value of those production activities at local level; whereas by reducing the movement of goods, 3D printing wouldmight lower both transport costs and CO2 emissions;
Amendment 40 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas 3D-printing technology could help to create new jobs that are in some cases less physically demanding and less dangerous (maintenance technicians, engineers, designers, etc.) and also reduce production and storage costs (low-volume manufacturing, personalised manufacturing, etc.);
Amendment 41 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas alerts - aimed at professionals and individual citizens - will be put in place by the Member States to warn of the potential dangers of 3D printing, for example gas emissions during production, and whereas protective measures will be introduced;
Amendment 45 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology raises specific legal and ethical issues regarding in particular intellectual property and civil liability, and whereas those issues fawill be dealt within by the rMemit of the Committee on Legal Affairsber States in line with their existing rules on civil liability;
Amendment 50 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas 3D-printing technology also raises security issues, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind, with each Member State already having a range of sanctions for all these areas;
Amendment 62 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas not all 3D-printing production of objects is unlawfuautomatically assumed to be illegal, nor are all operators in the sector producing counterfeit objects;
Amendment 89 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas national general liability rules also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime could be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved in the process often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could make the creator or vendor of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, the supplier of the materials used or even the person who created the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered;
Amendment 99 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipateconsideration should be given to anticipating potential problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have to adopt new legislation or tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating rules and should take into account projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint connected with the use of 3D printing;
Amendment 121 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature could make it feasible to control the legal reproduction of 3D objects protected by copyright, for example, digital and 3D- printing providers could systematically display a notice on the need to respect intellectual property, or a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a national tax on 3D printing could be levied by each Member State to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered as a result of private copies being made in 3D;
Amendment 124 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 136 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. CriticisNotes the fact that the Commission has not revised Directive 2004/48/EC during this term, as it had announced it would, and has instead limited itself to presenting non-binding guidelines, without providing clarifications ongoing into detail on any issues specific to 3D printing; welcomes, though, the measures announced by the Commission on 29 November 2017 which are intended to step up intellectual property protection;
Amendment 142 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Calls on the Commission to carefully consider the civil liability issues related to 3D- printing technology, including when it assesses the functioning of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products;
Amendment 143 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Recalls that civil liability is a matter falling in principle under the national legislation of each Member State;
Amendment 144 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10