European Union 3D Printing Legislation Proposal

Originally written and published by Beau Jackson at

The European Union recently heard a proposal to legislate for 3D printing regarding intellectual property rights and civil liability issues.

European Union 3D Printing Legislation Proposal

Due to its digital nature, 3D printing has been under some strife regarding copywrite and intellectual property protection, the online publication 3D Printing Industry reported.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs, JURI, recently discussed 3D printing intellectual property rights and civil liability.

Eurosceptic Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy member Joëlle Bergeron proposed legislative action regarding this issue in a report to Conservative, Liberal and Green Party members.

The report proposed legislation be created for 3D printing services “since the object being made has been digitally designed, the possibilities for modifying and applying it are endless”.

The type of services outlined by the document related to IP, “the possibility of customizing an object” and civil liability “in view of how the production chain operates.”

The document referenced one of France’s Higher Council for Literary and Artistic Property reviews, which found there was no reasonable concern for 3D printing and copyright infringement.  However, there was mention of the need for further clarification of online 3D filesharing platforms boundaries.

Bergeron’s report also asked for clarification regarding responsibility of defective or counterfeit 3D prints.  Further, a directive of the report regarding the needs of 3D printing is currently under review, according to 3D Printing Industries.

Three possible solutions were proposed by the report:

  1. A regulated 3D printed object global database;
  2. A legal limit dictating the number of objects produced; and
  3. A 3D printing tax “to compensate IPR holders for the loss suffered as a result of private copies being made of objects in 3D”.

It was noted these solutions would be almost impossible to enforce as an inordinate number of definitions were required and the solutions were not satisfactory on their own.

The report was mostly dismissed by JURI members, the Intellectual Property Watch wrote.

0 replies

Leave a Comment

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *