<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/t/a81bb56d468d9b1a" target="_blank">Ars Technica Article On IP Law Implications Of 3D
Printing</a>
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Bryan Bishop <<a href="mailto:kanzure@gmail.com" target="_blank">kanzure@gmail.com</a>></span>
Apr 06 01:43PM -0500
<a href="?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#12f2fe6fc1814c2e_digest_top">^</a><br>
<br><a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/the-next-napster-copyright-questions-as-3d-printing-comes-of-age.ars/" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/04/the-next-napster-copyright-questions-as-3d-printing-comes-of-age.ars/</a><br>
<br>
The Penrose Triangle is as elegant as it is impossible—much like M.C.<br>
Escher’s drawings, it presents a two-dimensional illusion that the eye<br>
interprets as three-dimensional. The task of effectively creating this<br>
illusion in three dimensions, without resorting to hidden openings or<br>
gimmicky twists, seemed daunting until a Netherlands-based designer
named<br>
Ulrich Schwanitz succeeded in printing the object<br>
recently<<a href="http://www.ff3300.com/wordpress/input/impossible-penrose-triangle-now-possible-with-3-d-printing-updated/" target="_blank">http://www.ff3300.com/wordpress/input/impossible-penrose-triangle-now-possible-with-3-d-printing-updated/</a>>.<br>
But Schwanitz, who posted a YouTube video of his design<br>
achievement<<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09SQCsMQok" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B09SQCsMQok</a>>in
action,<br>
wouldn’t share his secret with the world. Instead, he made his<br>
“impossible triangle” available for purchase through Shapeways, a
company<br>
that fabricates custom 3D designs, for<br>
$70<<a href="http://www.shapeways.com/model/206411/impossible_triangle_5____12_cm.html?gid=sg35824" target="_blank">http://www.shapeways.com/model/206411/impossible_triangle_5____12_cm.html?gid=sg35824</a>><br>
.<br>
<br>
Within weeks of Schwanitz’s “discovery,” however, a 3D modeler (and
former<br>
Shapeways intern) named Artur Tchoukanov watched the video and figured
out<br>
how to recreate the shape. He then uploaded instructions to<br>
Thingiverse<<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6456" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:6456</a>>,<br>
an open-source repository of 3D models and content. BoingBoing picked up
the<br>
story <<a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/02/17/impossible-penrose-t.html" target="_blank">http://boingboing.net/2011/02/17/impossible-penrose-t.html</a>>
(well,<br>
part of it), and “wrongly” credited Tchoukanov as the initial creator of
the<br>
object.<br>
<br>
The same day the story ran, Schwanitz sent Thingiverse a DMCA takedown<br>
notice<<a href="http://blog.thingiverse.com/2011/02/18/copyright-and-intellectual-property-policy/" target="_blank">http://blog.thingiverse.com/2011/02/18/copyright-and-intellectual-property-policy/</a>>and<br>
demanded that the site remove Tchoukanov’s design (and a related one)<br>
because it allegedly infringed Schwanitz’s copyright. Although the
copyright<br>
claim was questionable at best—was Schwanitz asserting copyright in the
3D<br>
design file, the image, or the structure itself?—Thingiverse
nevertheless<br>
complied with the notice and removed the offending designs.<br>
The Penrose triangle<br>
<br>
“For better or worse,” Thingiverse founder Bre Pettis wrote on the
site’s<br>
blog, “we’ve hit a milestone in the history of digital fabrication.”<br>
<br>
A few days later, after coming under Internet scrutiny, Schwanitz
rescinded<br>
his DMCA complaint<<a href="http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html" target="_blank">http://boingboing.net/2011/02/21/3d-printings-first-c.html</a>>and<br>
promised to release his shape into the public domain. But the damage<br>
was<br>
done. As Cory Doctorow eloquently put it, Schwanitz “became the inventor
of<br>
something much more substantial than a 3D Penrose Triangle—he became the<br>
inventor of copyright threats over open 3D repositories.”<br>
<br>
Schwanitz’s DMCA takedown notice was indeed a milestone for Thingiverse,<br>
which had operated free of any public accusations of patent or copyright<br>
infringement since it was founded. As a result of the incident,<br>
Thingiverse updated<br>
its legal page with DMCA language <<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/legal#dmca" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/legal#dmca</a>>.<br>
But the complaint spoke to something broader, and far more significant
for<br>
3D printing as a new technology: Schwanitz’s takedown was the first shot
in<br>
the next theater of the intellectual property (IP) wars. It was also the<br>
first formal attempt to apply copyright law to regulate content on a 3D<br>
printing repository of any kind.<br>
<br>
While Ars readers have enjoyed great<br>
coverage<<a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/3d-fabbers-dont-let-the-dmca-stifle-an-innovative-future.ars" target="_blank">http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/3d-fabbers-dont-let-the-dmca-stifle-an-innovative-future.ars</a>>of<br>
3D printing-related topics, the general public still isn't familiar<br>
with<br>
the technology. Indeed, many of my legal colleagues were baffled as I<br>
explained how any physical object can now be scanned to generate a CAD<br>
(computer-aided design) file and later recreated—anywhere, anytime—using
a<br>
3D printer. All agreed that such a technology would have unprecedented<br>
implications for intellectual property law (and vice versa).<br>
<br>
As with all technology, as 3D printing becomes simpler, more powerful,
and<br>
more common, it will catch the eyes of more lawyers, regulators, and, of<br>
course, individual designers like Ulrich Schwanitz. And that will mean<br>
conflict. Here's a primer on some of the key legal issues that will
frame<br>
the upcoming battles.<br>
A disruptor like no other<br>
<br>
Though still in its infancy, personal 3D printing technology already
shows<br>
the same disruptive potential as the original printing press. Just as<br>
moveable type spread across Europe and democratized knowledge, the<br>
proliferation of 3D printers eventually promises to democratize<br>
*creation*<<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18114221?story_id=18114221" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/node/18114221?story_id=18114221</a>>.<br>
Broken dishwasher part? Download the relevant CAD file and print it out
in<br>
plastic. While Amazon made trips to the store seem dated, 3D printing
will<br>
make ordering (some) things online feel positively quaint.<br>
<br>
Most people think of “printing” as a strictly 2D affair, but 3D printing<br>
works much like its 2D cousin, the inkjet printer, though it builds up a<br>
succession of layers to form its objects. Such printers can cost between<br>
thousands <<a href="http://sldtech.com/?page_id=299" target="_blank">http://sldtech.com/?page_id=299</a>>
and hundreds of thousands of<br>
dollars (a build-it-yourself model, the<br>
RepRap<<a href="http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page" target="_blank">http://www.reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page</a>>,<br>
can be assembled for a few hundred bucks).<br>
<<a href="http://static.arstechnica.com/03-25-2011/reprap_machine.jpg" target="_blank">http://static.arstechnica.com/03-25-2011/reprap_machine.jpg</a>><br>
The RepRap<br>
<br>
The fabrication process begins with a 3D design file, created from
scratch<br>
or drawn from a 3D scan of an object. Software deconstructs the 3D image<br>
into a series of 2D cross-sectional slices and the printer deposits
layers<br>
of material<<a href="http://www.me.psu.edu/lamancusa/rapidpro/primer/chapter2.htm#fdm" target="_blank">http://www.me.psu.edu/lamancusa/rapidpro/primer/chapter2.htm#fdm</a>>,<br>
typically plastic<br>
<<a href="http://www.redeyeondemand.com/FAQ-Materials.aspx#whatarematerialsused" target="_blank">http://www.redeyeondemand.com/FAQ-Materials.aspx#whatarematerialsused</a>>or<br>
metal<<a href="http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/i-materialise-launches-stainless-steel-3d-printing" target="_blank">http://i.materialise.com/blog/entry/i-materialise-launches-stainless-steel-3d-printing</a>>,<br>
one atop the other in the shape of each 2D slice. The layers are fused,
and<br>
the fabricated object is treated and hardened.<br>
<br>
Because 3D printers don’t need to carve material from preexisting blocks
(as<br>
in sculpture), the process allows for elaborate and<br>
visually<<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/imaterialise/5224237885/" target="_blank">http://www.flickr.com/photos/imaterialise/5224237885/</a>><br>
stunning<br>
shapes <<a href="http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/utanalog" target="_blank">http://www.unfold.be/pages/projects/items/utanalog</a>>
to be created in<br>
a matter of hours with no manual labor. The size of these shapes is only<br>
limited by the size of the printer making them—heck, combine a big
enough<br>
one with a space probe and you’re halfway to Von Neumann technology.<br>
<br>
All that is well and good, but as Thingiverse recently discovered, any<br>
technology that allows users to digitize and replicate objects is bound
to<br>
have some IP implications. And it’s precisely because of its potential
as a<br>
game changer that 3D printing presents challenging legal questions best<br>
addressed before the technology becomes ubiquitous.<br>
<br>
Gutenberg didn’t have to worry much about intellectual property laws,
but he<br>
had to compete with an array of other legal and societal challenges to
his<br>
invention. Eventually copyright, a novel concept in the 16th century,
emerged<br>
as a means to regulate Gutenberg’s disruptive<br>
technology<<a href="http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.arl.org/pp/ppcopyright/copyresources/copytimeline.shtml</a>>.<br>
3D printing is especially intriguing from a legal perspective because,
like<br>
the printing press, it has broad implications for the existing legal
regime<br>
(including all three areas of IP - patent, copyright, and trademark),
but it<br>
also presents issues that may warrant broad changes to existing law—or<br>
require new laws entirely.<br>
Under the radar<br>
<br>
In discussing the topic with colleagues and reviewing the state of the
law,<br>
I found that few people have spoken up on how the law will influence 3D<br>
printing. How has so disruptive a technology remained in the legal
shadows?<br>
<br>
First, the promise of one day making anything, anytime, out of almost
any<br>
material <<a href="http://www.economist.com/node/18114221?story_id=18114221" target="_blank">http://www.economist.com/node/18114221?story_id=18114221</a>>
is so<br>
broad that no one knows—or can really know—exactly how that technology
will<br>
affect them. P2P software and websites that became flush with
copyrighted<br>
media quickly drew the ire of studios who were directly being harmed.
But<br>
artists, designers, and inventors alike may take a wait-and-see approach<br>
until 3D printing technology directly affects them, just as Schwanitz
did.<br>
A Dimension 3D printer<br>
<br>
Second, 3D printing today remains a hobbyist-driven enterprise with a
high<br>
barrier to entry. Some readers may recall that it wasn’t until Sony
began<br>
advertising an affordable Beta-format VCR in 1975 that Hollywood studios<br>
took notice of home video recording and famously decided to file suit<br>
against Sony<<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc</a>.>.<br>
Trying to regulate a technology that’s not yet ready for prime time may<br>
simply be premature for lawmakers and lobbyists alike.<br>
<br>
Lastly, there hasn’t been a truly high-profile allegation of
infringement<br>
against or within the 3D printing community. Napster operated freely
until<br>
Metallica complained<br>
<<a href="http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670" target="_blank">http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/04/35670</a>>of
finding a<br>
demo circulating on the user network, a discovery that spawned<br>
a cavalcade of other aggrieved musicians. The 3D printing community,<br>
animated as it is by an open source *esprit de corps*, simply hasn’t had
a<br>
defining “Napster moment” yet.<br>
<br>
If the current 3D printing free-for-all sounds too good to last, it is.
The<br>
community today is small and has avoided, either by chance or design,<br>
stepping on any really big toes (sorry, Ulrich). But to see why the
hammer<br>
will fall eventually, consider the existing 3D object hosting sites.<br>
The risky business of hosting 3D design files<br>
<br>
Two models have emerged for websites that distribute and/or fabricate 3D<br>
designs. In the first model, users freely upload, improve upon, and<br>
distribute virtually any designs at all. This “open model” is typified
by<br>
Thingiverse, where users share designs under Creative Commons licenses.<br>
<br>
The second type of website, which we might call a “money model,”<br>
commercializes aspects of the 3D printing process. Sites like Shapeways,<br>
where you can order custom designs for everything from<br>
jewelry<<a href="http://www.shapeways.com/themes/jewelry" target="_blank">http://www.shapeways.com/themes/jewelry</a>>to
“impossible<br>
triangles,” have embraced this approach. Other “money model”<br>
sites will even sell 3D designs for highly distinctive designer items.
These<br>
sites will no doubt proliferate as 3D printers become more common, and
they<br>
will seek to capitalize on the legal uncertainty associated with<br>
distributing 3D design files for copyrighted and/or patented items.<br>
<br>
While each model embraces a different view of the future of 3D printing,
all<br>
are likely to face some of the same fundamental legal challenges. Sites
that<br>
distribute protected content, whether they do so out of (non-commercial)<br>
enthusiasm for the technology, or out of the desire for revenue, always
make<br>
better targets for rightsholders than the users of those sites, so
websites<br>
like Thingiverse and Shapeways are likely to be first in the crosshairs.<br>
While those two sites in particular have been well-behaved from an IP<br>
perspective, rightsholders looking for targets today needn’t go too far
to<br>
find them.<br>
The open model<br>
<br>
It's unlikely that a legitimate rightsholder would refrain from suing<br>
Thingiverse simply because it advocates an open source, non-commercial<br>
approach to sharing 3D designs. But so far, the site has only
acknowledged<br>
one IP-related complaint, that of Ulrich Schwanitz.<br>
<br>
This is curious, as Thingiverse’s collection boasts designs for things<br>
like companion<br>
cubes <<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1622" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1622</a>>
(*Portal*), and Darth Vader<br>
heads <<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1636" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:1636</a>>
(*Star Wars*). Thingiverse<br>
also hosts design files for the hexagonal<br>
tiles<<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5727" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5727</a>>and
game<br>
pieces <<a href="http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5755" target="_blank">http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5755</a>> used
in the popular Settlers<br>
of Catan<<a href="http://www.amazon.com/MayFair-Games-4102480-Settlers-Catan/dp/B000W7JWUA/arstech-20" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/MayFair-Games-4102480-Settlers-Catan/dp/B000W7JWUA/arstech-20</a>>.<br>
Distributing any of these files could put Thingiverse on the receiving
end<br>
of a more forceful DMCA notice (or a cease & desist letter) than<br>
Schwanitz’s. After all, these are lucrative, million (and in the case of
*Star<br>
Wars*, billion) dollar intellectual properties. So what gives?<br>
<<a href="http://static.arstechnica.com/03-25-2011/1141_zcorpprinter_650_0014_LOWRES.jpg" target="_blank">http://static.arstechnica.com/03-25-2011/1141_zcorpprinter_650_0014_LOWRES.jpg</a>><br>
3D printer from ZCorp<br>
<br>
We can only speculate why Valve and George Lucas haven’t done anything,
but<br>
it’s probably because so few people have 3D printers and any takedown
might<br>
be bad PR. No one appears to be mass producing companion cubes or Vader<br>
heads and selling them. There was considerable<br>
speculation<<a href="http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02/thingiverse-3d-catan-pieces-legal-or-not.html" target="_blank">http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2011/02/thingiverse-3d-catan-pieces-legal-or-not.html</a>>that<br>
the appearance of the Catan files on Thingiverse also raised<br>
IP concerns<<a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg" target="_blank">http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/3d-printing-settlers-catan-probably-not-illeg</a>>,<br>
but that was unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, board games are<br>
afforded only limited copyright protection—you can’t copyright the
concept<br>
or ideas that animate the rules of a game. Moreover, the Catan
pieces—basic,<br>
non-ornamental shapes (many of which have less detail than the
replacement<br>
game pieces over at Thingiverse)—would likely enjoy only a modest degree
of<br>
copyright protection. Second, it appears Settlers of Catan isn’t
patented.<br>
Unlike copyright, which attaches to a creative work the moment it is
fixed<br>
in a tangible medium, a patent issues only after applicants go through
the<br>
lengthy and costly patent prosecution process before the United States<br>
Patent and Trademark Office. (Think of it this way: copyrights are made,
but<br>
patents have to be earned.)<br>
<br>
But Valve, Lucas, and the publishers of the Settlers of Catan series may
be<br>
taking some risk by letting these designs slide. While the 3D designs
hosted<br>
on Thingiverse seem directed toward a very small hobbyist community, if<br>
companies fail to police their IP rights, what would stop an overseas<br>
manufacturer from downloading the designs, mass producing knockoffs, and<br>
selling them through Amazon, eBay, or another storefront entirely? Of<br>
course, the designs could be procured elsewhere, but courts often look<br>
unfavorably on parties that sit on their rights.<br>
<br>
<br>
The money models<br>
<br>
What if you could print any designer chair, iconic jewelry, or antique
car<br>
parts for a fraction of the actual price?<br>
<br>
We already know that a purely philanthropic or non-profit purpose
doesn’t<br>
usually shield a website from the weight of IP law enforcement. However,<br>
sites that overtly try to profit from or monetize others’ copyrighted
works<br>
or patented inventions may more quickly attract attention, and lawsuits.<br>
<br>
Take for example, 3Docean, which allows users to buy designs for an
Alessi<br>
tea set <<a href="http://3docean.net/item/alessi-il-conico-tea-set/124379" target="_blank">http://3docean.net/item/alessi-il-conico-tea-set/124379</a>>
that<br>
retails for a few hundred dollars<br>
elsewhere<<a href="http://www1.bloomingdales.com/catalog/product/index.ognc?ID=115891" target="_blank">http://www1.bloomingdales.com/catalog/product/index.ognc?ID=115891</a>>.<br>
On another site, the3dstudio, users can download the model for a
Jonathan<br>
Adler chair<<a href="http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=35892" target="_blank">http://www.the3dstudio.com/product_details.aspx?id_product=35892</a>>that<br>
retails for $700<br>
at Neiman Marcus<<a href="http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod119360008&parentId=" target="_blank">http://www.neimanmarcus.com/store/catalog/prod.jhtml?itemId=prod119360008&parentId=</a>>—quite<br>
a steal.<br>
<br>
The downloadable Alessi tea set and Adler chair are far more troubling
from<br>
a legal perspective than the Catan game pieces. They are highly
distinctive,<br>
artistically expressive and entitled to copyright protection, and they
may<br>
also have separate patent protection. In both instances, the websites<br>
offering the downloadable 3D files use the trade names of the original<br>
designer/manufacturer—Alessi and Jonathan Adler—also implicating
trademark<br>
concerns. That said, it’s unclear how many sales have been made (and how<br>
many products have been printed
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a> - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>