Activities of Luis de GRANDES PASCUAL 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 (29)
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 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 7 #
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 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 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 14 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the market for 3D printers constitutes a sector which is experiencing rapid growth and whereas this is expected to continue in the coming years;
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A b (new)
Recital A b (new)
Ab. whereas 3D printing has an enormous potential to transform supply chains in manufacturing which could help Europe increase output levels; whereas the application of this technology offers new opportunities for business development and innovation;
Amendment 17 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A c (new)
Recital A c (new)
Ac. whereas the European Commission has identified 3D printing as a priority area for action offering significant economic potential, notably for small innovative enterprises; whereas many countries have already recognised the transformative potential of 3D printing and have begun to adopt, albeit in an unequal manner, various strategies to create an economic and technological ecosystem to promote its development;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
Ba. whereas the potential advantages of 3D printing for innovative enterprises are numerous; whereas in particular, 3D printing allows a reduction in overall costs when developing, designing and testing new products or improving existing ones;
Amendment 24 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B b (new)
Recital B b (new)
Bb. whereas 3D printing is inevitably becoming simpler and more accessible to all; whereas it is to be expected that the limitations as regards materials that can be used, speed, and the consumption of raw materials and energy will be significantly reduced in a short period of time;
Amendment 26 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C
Recital C
C. whereas expectations are high in many areas, for example, the medical (ranging from regenerative medicine to the manufacture of prosthetics), aeronautics, aerospace, automotive, building, architecture and design sectors;
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital C a (new)
Recital C a (new)
Ca. whereas the lack of regulation has limited the use of three-dimensional printing in key industrial sectors such as, for instance, the aerospace and medical/dental sectors, and whereas regulating the use of 3D printers will help increase the use of technologies and offer opportunities for research and development;
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital D
Recital D
D. whereas a reduction in the number of intermediaries would 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 would lower both transport costs and CO2 emissions;
Amendment 42 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E a (new)
Recital E a (new)
Ea. whereas 3D printing affects all areas of intellectual property law, such as copyright, patents, designs, three- dimensional trademarks and even geographical indications;
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas 3D-printing technology raises specific legethical and ethiclegal issues regarding intellectual property andsuch as civil liability, and whereas those issues equally fall within the remit of the Committee on Legal Affairs;
Amendment 49 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F a (new)
Recital F a (new)
Fa. whereas new technologies are able to scan objects or people and generate digital files which can subsequently be printed in 3D and whereas this can affect image rights and the right to privacy;
Amendment 54 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
Amendment 63 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H a (new)
Recital H a (new)
Ha. whereas it is technically possible to copy almost any object, with or without obtaining the consent of those who own the rights on the object;
Amendment 64 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H b (new)
Recital H b (new)
Hb. whereas there are potential problems regarding extraterritoriality, given that by simply downloading the plan for a desired object from the web or through the use of a 3D scanner, the end user, who may be located anywhere on the planet, will be able to replicate that object; whereas most platforms appear to be established outside the EU and governed by the legal systems of the foreign countries concerned, making it impossible to invoke European law to adopt the provisions referring to them; whereas this not only poses problems as regards the applicable legislation for the prosecution of infringements, but also practically neutralises the effectiveness of controls by customs authorities on goods entering or leaving each country since there is no need to transport counterfeit products between jurisdictions;
Amendment 70 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J a (new)
Recital J a (new)
Ja. whereas these few examples which may be envisaged now will probably become more complex as the technology evolves; whereas they raise the question as to what needs to be done to tackle the potential for counterfeiting using 3D printing technologies;
Amendment 76 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas, in conclusion, 3D printing has not fundamentally altered copyintellectual property rights, but 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;
Amendment 78 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital M
Recital M
Amendment 88 #
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 that has led the Commission to undertake a revispublic consultation ofn that Directive to check whether it still meets current needs;
Amendment 96 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital P a (new)
Recital P a (new)
Pa. whereas all elements of additive manufacturing technology must meet certain criteria and be certified to guarantee that it is possible to manufacture reproducible quality parts; whereas certification is rendered complex owing to the numerous transformations of machinery, materials and processes, and to the absence of a database; whereas it will therefore be necessary to develop rules allowing a speedier and more cost- effective certification of all materials, processes and products;
Amendment 119 #
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, 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 122 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. 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, were they are provided for in national law;
Amendment 137 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Notes that the intellectual property rights concerning the various elements of 3D printing technology have been determined and that, consequently, the next question will be how to uphold them;
Amendment 148 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10 a (new)
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Draws attention to the possible implications of new forms of marketing along the lines of ‘make it yourself’, supplying not the final product but only the software for download and the specifications for printing the product;