Activities of Max ANDERSSON related to 2017/2007(INI)
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 (23)
Amendment 11 #
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 shouldwill likely, 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 20 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the majoritya growing part of the 3D- printed products being created are prototypesmore ready-to-be used or -commercialised items than mere prototypes as they used to be;
Amendment 23 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. Whereas the use of 3-D printing is becoming more and more widespread in the society, notably in the education field, in citizen and start-up fora, such as ‘maker spaces’, as well as in the private sphere;
Amendment 48 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology raises specific legal and ethical issues regarding intellectual property and, notably as regards civil liability, and rules; whereas those issues fall within the remit of the Committee on Legal Affairs;
Amendment 61 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas not all 3D-printing production of objects is unlawful, nor are all operators in the sector producing counterfeit objects or infringes third party rights, proper sanctions should be implemented according to the law;
Amendment 65 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I
Recital I
I. whereas, from a copyright point of view, useful distinctions should be made: for instance,, in particular between home printing for private use and printing for commercial use, andor for uses covered by copyright limitations and exceptions on the one hand, and printing for commercial use on the other hand; distinctions between B2B services and B2C services should also be taken into account.
Amendment 69 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas a report drawn up by France’s Higher Council for Literary and Artistic Property on 3D printing and copyright found that ‘the democratisation of 3D printing does not appear, to date, to be causing a huge problem with copyright infringement, which is the subject of this report; whereas it acknowledges that ‘the main risk of counterfeiting is with works of art’;
Amendment 71 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K
Recital K
K. whereas as a result of the processes that it uses, 3D printing leads to what the industry has described as a kind of ‘fragmentation of the act of creating’ in that a protected work may be circulated digitally before it takes a physical form,; which makes it easier to copy and complicates the fereas this is not new to the industry which holds intellectual property rights against counterfeiting considerablynd has developed digital business models;
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
Amendment 77 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L a (new)
Recital L a (new)
La. Whereas 3D printing has not fundamentally altered the way copyright applies; however, due scrutiny should be brought to how exclusive rights are allocated and implemented, in consideration of the large amount of open-source licenses governing the creation of software in this domain, and in compliance with uses allowed under intellectual property law;
Amendment 80 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
M. wWhereas the question of the relevance and applicability forof existing liability rules to the goods produced and forto the damage resulting from a defective file could, as regards consumers, be resolved with reference to Articles 10 and 14 of the Commission proposal on certain aspects of contracts for the supply of digital contentor from a defective function of the physical product resulting from it, arises, in a way similar to the questions highlighted by the European Parliament Resolution on Civil Law Rules on Robotics (A8-0005/2017);
Amendment 84 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M a (new)
Recital M a (new)
Ma. whereas the impact of 3-D printing on consumers’ rights and on consumer law in general should be carefully examined in light of Directive XXX on certain aspects of contracts for the supply of digital digital content;
Amendment 91 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas general liability rules, including those on the liability of intermediary service providers as defined in articles 12 to 14 of the e-commerce Directive, 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 vendoseller of the 3D file liable, or the producer of the 3D printer, or the producer of the software used in the 3D printer, or the supplier of the materials used for printing, or even the person who creaprinted the object, depending on the cause of the defect discovered and on the damage that occurred;
Amendment 97 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. Whereas 3D printing has a role to play in reducing energy and natural resources consumption in the purpose of fighting the climate change; whereas the use of 3D printing would minimise waste in production and prolong lifespan of consumer products by enabling production of replacement parts at consumer level;
Amendment 98 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P b (new)
Recital P b (new)
Pb. Having regard to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market;
Amendment 101 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that to anticipate problems relating to accident liability or intellectual property infringement, the EU will have toIs of the opinion that in order to anticipate the legal and ethical problems raised by 3D printing technologies, the EU should carefully consider adoapt newing 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 inseek to acencount projects that are already under way; adds that innovation needs to be accompanied by law, without the law acting as a brake or a constraintrage innovation;
Amendment 108 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
Amendment 116 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that solutions of a legal nature cshould make it feasibleenable rights-holders 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 3Ds of protected 3D objects when exclusive rights apply;
Amendment 125 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
Amendment 132 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Criticises the factNotes that at this stage, none of those options is wholly satisfactory on its own;
Amendment 133 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 139 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Therefore calls 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 all stakeholders in that workendeavour, including SMEs and consumers;
Amendment 141 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8 a (new)
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Notes the applicability, necessity and practicability of existing liability rules for intermediary service providers which transmit, cache or host and considers them appropriate for 3D printing service infrastructure.