4 Amendments of Enrico GASBARRA related to 2017/2007(INI)
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas expectations are high in many areas, for example, the medical, aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, building, architecture, mechanical engineering, leisure and design sectors;
Amendment 57 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas not allthe 3D-printing production of objects is unlawful, nor arcould be an incredible resource allnd operators in the sector producing counterfeit objectsportunity offered to us by technological research, though we should not underestimate the possible risks stemming from any unlawful use, or any use that does not perfectly comply with existing safety legislation;
Amendment 111 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Considers that it goes without saying that care should be taken in the 3D- printing sector, particularly with regard to the quality of the printed product and any dangers that the product may pose to users or consumers, and (emissions of nanoparticles that could prove to be harmful to health, failure to comply with the quality and safety standards laid down in Regulation (EU) 2017/745 in customised copies of medical devices, risks relating to the reproduction of objects that come into contact with food, which might not comply with Directive 2002/72/EC relating to plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, faulty 3D products due to human, software, scanning or original design error, etc.); takes the view that it would be appropriate to consider including identification means to make it possible to distinguish between objects produced in the traditional way and objects produced using 3D printing;
Amendment 117 #
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 nebe advised to respect intellectual property, a legal and technological limit could be introducdentified 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; notes that, above all, uses that are deemed to be prohibited could be regulated (by restricting the 3D printing of objects which infringe patents, which have not been legally purchased or which are not permitted under existing law, such as arms, drugs, etc.);