16 Amendments of Daniel BUDA 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 7 #
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 objectsit should be remembered that, contrary to the concerns expressed by some actors, not all 3D-printing production of objects is automatically assumed to be illegal or infringes third-party rights, nor are all operators in the sector aiming to profit from the sale of counterfeit goods; whereas, however, counterfeited items can be produced easily;
Amendment 9 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas general liability rules also apply to 3D printing;cover the liability of intermediary service providers as defined in Articles 12 to 14 of the e-commerce Directive, whereas a specific liability regime cshould be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved inand the processcomplex process used to create the finished product often makes it difficult for the victim to identify the person responsible; whereas those rules could makea specific liability regime should 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 the liability could lie with 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 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas three-dimensional (3D) printing btecamehnology developed with the launching of 3D printers, with companies offering both digital models and 3D printing services, becoming accessible to the general public when 3D printers for individuals were placed on the market; whereas it is considered that that market shouldwill, 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 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 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas most of today’s high-tech industries use this technology; whereas, owing to the benefits offered by its use, expectations are high in many areas, for example, the medical, aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, buildinghousehold electrical appliance, building, archaeological research, architecture and design sectors;
Amendment 30 #
Ca. whereas point 2.1 of the opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Living tomorrow. 3D printing — a tool to empower the European economy’ (2015/C 332/05)1a states that ‘using the right advanced manufacturing technology, Europe could re-shore production from lower wage regions to spur on innovation and create sustainable growth at home’. _________________ 1aSee http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52 014IE4420&from=EN
Amendment 58 #
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 producing3-D printing could help to facilitate counterfeiting, committed by individuals or by organised groups aiming to profit from the sale of counterfeit objectgoods;
Amendment 68 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital I a (new)
Recital I a (new)
Ia. whereas the elements that characterise the production of objects as being unlawful should be clearly identified, along with the elements that define the limits of lawful behaviour by actors in this market;
Amendment 74 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, in conclusion, 3D printing has not fundamentally altered copyright, butonce created, open- source digital files can be freely modified, improved and customised; whereas, in conclusion, initial digital files created may be considered a work and whereas, if that is the case, the work must be protected as such; whereas, in the short and medium term, and with a view to tackling counterfeiting, the main challenge will be to involve professional copyright intermediaries more closely and more efficiently;
Amendment 92 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O
Recital O
O. whereas general liability rules also apply to 3D printing; whereas a specific liability regime cshould be envisaged for damage caused by an object created using 3D-printing technology, as the number of stakeholders involved inand the processcomplex process used to create the finished product 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 95 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital O a (new)
Recital O a (new)
Oa. whereas the absence of or shortcomings in this specific civil liability regime affect the insurance system, with the risk that any insurance in this area could be too costly or indeed impossible/unavailable;
Amendment 107 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Calls on the Commission, in this process, specifically and clearly to identify what behaviour by actors on the 3-D printing market constitutes copyright infringement, as well as the elements that could lead to the production of illegal objects; considers it necessary, further, to establish which person along the whole production chain bears civil liability in the event of damage, which is also an essential aspect for insurers;
Amendment 120 #
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, elements could be included in the 3D files created that will make it possible to trace them, and 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 126 #
5. Stresses, however, that technical solutions – currently underdeveloped – must not be overlooked, 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; stresses, further, that whichever of these measures are adopted, their implementation should not have any cost- related impact on the activity already being carried out by market players;