25 Amendments of Antanas GUOGA related to 2017/2007(INI)
Amendment 1 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas three-dimensional (3D) printing became accessible to the general public when 3D printers for individuals were placed on the market; whereas that market should, however, remain marginal in the medium term, taking into account the cost of printers and materials, the limited capacity of 3D printers designed for individual use, and the limited number and nature of materials made available to consumer and when companies arrived on the market offering both digital models and 3D printing services;
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas most of today’s high-tech industries use this technology, whereas opportunities to use 3 D printing have highly increased in many areas, and whereas expectations are high in many areas, for example, the medical, aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, building, architect (ranging from regenerative medicine to the manufacture of prosthetics), aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, household electrical appliance, building, archaeological research, architecture, mechanical engineering, leisure and design sectors;
Amendment 4 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas 3D-printing technology could helpis expected to create more new jobs that arefor skilled labour 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.)whereas with the creation of new technician positions (e.g. operator for 3D printers) new liabilities will emerge and the 3D-printing industry will need to provide the appropriate trainings in order for the technicians to be at the same level with their counterparts in traditional manufacturing; whereas 3D-printing technology will also reduce production and storage costs (low-volume manufacturing, personalised manufacturing, etc.); whereas, however, the decrease in manufacturing jobs will greatly affect the economy of countries that rely on a large number of low-skill jobs;
Amendment 5 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology raisesmight raise some specific legal and ethical issueconcerns regarding all areas of intellectual property law, such as copyright, patents, designs, three-dimensional trademarks and even geographical indications, and civil liability, and whereas those issue, moreover, those concerns fall within the remit of the Committee on Legal Affairs;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas 3D-printing technology might also raises security issueand especially cyber-security concerns, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs and any other hazardous objects, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products covers all contracts; whereas it should be noted that it is progress in 3D printing amongst other things that has led the Commission to undertake a revision of that Directive to check whether it still meets current needpublic consultation with the aim of assessing whether this Directive is fit for purpose in relation to new technological developments;
Amendment 8 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas three-dimensional (3D) printing became accessible to the general public when 3D printers for individuals were placed on the market; whereas that market should, however, remain marginal in the medium term, taking into account the cost of printers and materials, the limited capacity of 3D printers designed for individual use, and the limited number and nature of materials made available to consumers;
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accidentcivil liability or intellectual property infringement that 3D printing might cause in the future, the EU willmight have to adopt new legislation orand tailor existing laws to the specific case of 3D technology, taking into account the decisions of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the relevant case law of the EU and Member State courts and after having carried out a thorough impact assessment evaluating all policy options; stresses that, in any case, the legislative response should avoid duplicating existing rules and should take into account projects that are already under way, in particular the legislation on copyright currently applicable to 2D printing; adds that innovation needs to be promoted and accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraint;
Amendment 11 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature if necessary 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, a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a tax on 3D printing could be levied to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered asemphasises, in that context, the importance of elements that make it possible to trace 3D objects or of the introduction of a legal limit on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction; emphasises that if a 3D copy constitutes a private copy, national laws governing exemptions for private copies will apply, including as regards compensation or revenue collection schemes, where they a result of private copies being made in 3D provided for in national law;
Amendment 12 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas 3 D printing is viewed as one of the most prominent technologies where Europe can play a leading role; whereas the European Commission recognized the benefits of 3 D printing by sponsoring 21 projects based on the technology by Horizon 2020 between 2014-2016.
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the majority of thesome industries have been using final parts made by using 3D- printed products being cing for a number of years already and the final parts market continues to grow at a related are prototypesively fast rate;;
Amendment 28 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas expectations are highopportunities to use 3 D printing have highly increased in many areas, for example, the medical, aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, building, architecture and design sectors;
Amendment 39 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas 3D-printing technology could helpis expected to create more new jobs for skilled labour that are 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 46 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology might raises specificome legal and ethical issueconcerns regarding intellectual property and civil liability, and whereas those issueconcerns fall within the remit of the Committee on Legal Affairs;
Amendment 53 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital G
Recital G
G. whereas 3D-printing technology also raisesmight raise some security issueconcerns, particularly with regard to the manufacturing of weapons, explosives and drugs, and particular care should be taken with regard to production of that kind;
Amendment 67 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas, from a copyright point of view, useful certain distinctions should be made: for instance, between home printing for private use and printing for commercial use, and between B2B services and B2C services.
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital N
Recital N
N. whereas Directive 85/374/EEC on liability for defective products covers all contracts; whereas it should be noted that it is progress in 3D printing amongst other things that has led the Commission to undertake a revision of that Directive to check whether it still meets current needs;
Amendment 90 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas 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, asacknowledging that 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 104 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement that 3 D printing might cause in the future, the EU willmay 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;
Amendment 110 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
Amendment 118 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature if necessary 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, a legal limit could be introduced on the number of private copies of 3D objects in order to prevent illegal reproduction, and a tax on 3D printing could be levied to compensate intellectual property rights holders for damages suffered as a result of private copies being made in 3D;
Amendment 128 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses, however, that technical solutions – currently underdeveloped – must not be overlookcould be further investigated, for example, the creation of databases of encrypted and protected files and the design of printers connected to and equipped with a system capable of managing intellectual property rights;
Amendment 131 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
Amendment 140 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Therefore cCalls on the Commission to give comprehensive consideration to every aspect of 3D-printing technology when taking the measures referred to in its communication (COM(2017)0707); stresses the importance of involving stakeholders in that work;
Amendment 145 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to explore the possibility ofreview whether setting up a civil liability regime for damages not covered by Directive 85/374/EEC is necessary;