EU Design and Copyright Protection and their adaptability to 3D Printing
(2016) LAGM01 20161Department of Law
- Abstract
- This thesis deals mainly with three questions. The first question concerns what lessons concerning the development of 3D printing and its influence on EU copyright protection in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and EU design protection can be learnt from history concerning the technological developments of digitization of music and the introduction of the InfoSoc Directive. The second question concerns EU design law and copyright law in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and its adaptability to the technology of 3D printing. The third question deals with the technological measures that the rightholders can use to protect their product or service in relation to 3D printing.
From the digitization of music and the development of... (More) - This thesis deals mainly with three questions. The first question concerns what lessons concerning the development of 3D printing and its influence on EU copyright protection in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and EU design protection can be learnt from history concerning the technological developments of digitization of music and the introduction of the InfoSoc Directive. The second question concerns EU design law and copyright law in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and its adaptability to the technology of 3D printing. The third question deals with the technological measures that the rightholders can use to protect their product or service in relation to 3D printing.
From the digitization of music and the development of the Internet and the introduction of the InfoSoc Directive, it is clear that EU copyright protection has been harmonised in certain areas in order to adapt to new technology. The recent history of technology and copyright protection can give guidance on how to deal with new technologies like 3D printing and intellectual property protection like copyright and design protection in the near future. The lesson to be learnt is that EU intellectual property legislation should not have provisions that are too technology specific.
The introduction of the InfoSoc Directive was troublesome since it was difficult to foresee the developments of DRM systems. DRM systems have not been used as extensively as expected. Consequently, the provisions concerning DRM systems should be changed. In my opinion, rightholders should have the possibility to use these measures, but the protection of them should only last as long as the right they are protecting. In general, it is better to provide a ‘broad’ intellectual property legislation in relation to new technology since it is difficult to foresee how that technology will be developed and used. Accordingly, special provisions concerning 3D printing should not be introduced. Provisions applicable on 3D printing concerning for example reproduction of copyright protected or design protected products are already provided by the InfoSoc Directive and the DD. These directives provide a strong protection for rightholders. Some products may even have the double protection of a design right and a copyright.
In my opinion, the InfoSoc Directive and the DD should be changed, not because of the 3D printing technology, but due to the need for update. The DD should be changed for the purpose of harmonising the protection or non-protection of spare parts. The InfoSoc Directive should be changed in relation to the DRM provisions, but also in relation the harmonisation of exceptions and limitations to promote legal certainty for rightholders and other actors. In my opinion, a problem with the current InfoSoc Directive is that the only focus seem to be the interests of the rightholder. I would prefer a legislation were the interests of the user and other designers are taken into account. The DD seems to provide a rather good balance of rights. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/8874476
- author
- Bengtsson, Emilia LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- LAGM01 20161
- year
- 2016
- type
- H2 - Master's Degree (Two Years)
- subject
- keywords
- Private law, EU law, Design law, Copyright, Intellectual property law, 3D Printing, Legal history, Technology, Economic perspective
- language
- English
- id
- 8874476
- date added to LUP
- 2016-06-21 12:54:42
- date last changed
- 2016-06-21 12:54:42
@misc{8874476,
abstract = {{This thesis deals mainly with three questions. The first question concerns what lessons concerning the development of 3D printing and its influence on EU copyright protection in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and EU design protection can be learnt from history concerning the technological developments of digitization of music and the introduction of the InfoSoc Directive. The second question concerns EU design law and copyright law in accordance with the InfoSoc Directive and its adaptability to the technology of 3D printing. The third question deals with the technological measures that the rightholders can use to protect their product or service in relation to 3D printing.
From the digitization of music and the development of the Internet and the introduction of the InfoSoc Directive, it is clear that EU copyright protection has been harmonised in certain areas in order to adapt to new technology. The recent history of technology and copyright protection can give guidance on how to deal with new technologies like 3D printing and intellectual property protection like copyright and design protection in the near future. The lesson to be learnt is that EU intellectual property legislation should not have provisions that are too technology specific.
The introduction of the InfoSoc Directive was troublesome since it was difficult to foresee the developments of DRM systems. DRM systems have not been used as extensively as expected. Consequently, the provisions concerning DRM systems should be changed. In my opinion, rightholders should have the possibility to use these measures, but the protection of them should only last as long as the right they are protecting. In general, it is better to provide a ‘broad’ intellectual property legislation in relation to new technology since it is difficult to foresee how that technology will be developed and used. Accordingly, special provisions concerning 3D printing should not be introduced. Provisions applicable on 3D printing concerning for example reproduction of copyright protected or design protected products are already provided by the InfoSoc Directive and the DD. These directives provide a strong protection for rightholders. Some products may even have the double protection of a design right and a copyright.
In my opinion, the InfoSoc Directive and the DD should be changed, not because of the 3D printing technology, but due to the need for update. The DD should be changed for the purpose of harmonising the protection or non-protection of spare parts. The InfoSoc Directive should be changed in relation to the DRM provisions, but also in relation the harmonisation of exceptions and limitations to promote legal certainty for rightholders and other actors. In my opinion, a problem with the current InfoSoc Directive is that the only focus seem to be the interests of the rightholder. I would prefer a legislation were the interests of the user and other designers are taken into account. The DD seems to provide a rather good balance of rights.}},
author = {{Bengtsson, Emilia}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{EU Design and Copyright Protection and their adaptability to 3D Printing}},
year = {{2016}},
}