Here's a new bill in the California Assembly, AB-37*, which would require libraries that have 3D printers to post stupid signs warning people not to do nasty infringy things with those printers:
This bill would require every public library that provides public access to a 3D printer, as defined, to post a notice on or near the 3D printer that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer, as specified.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to draft and distribute this notice, as specified, and annually review and revise the notice for accuracy. By imposing additional duties upon local officials, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
In the actual text of the law, they're explicit about how it's about not infringing intellectual property:
The Department of Justice shall prepare and distribute to a public library that provides public access to a 3D printer a notice that would alert users of the 3D printer of the potential liability of the user for misuse of the 3D printer. The notice shall do all of the following:
(A) Provide citations to the applicable state and federal laws that may impose civil liability or criminal penalties for misuse of a 3D printer, including laws regarding copyright infringement and trademark and patent protection.
A Three-Step Process In order to understand what it is you are licensing, this paper proposes a three-step process:
Figure out which elements of your object or object file are eligible for copyright protection
This can be much harder in the world of physical objects than it is with exclusively digital works. Unlike with code or photographs, with physical objects you may actually have to search out what parts are and are not protected by copyright. You may also need to make a distinction between the object and the file that represents the object—something that rarely occurs in the more traditional copyright world. While this can be complicated, this paper will try to make it as intuitive and straightforward as possible.
Understand what copyright does—and does not—allow you to control
Although it sometimes can feel otherwise, a copyright that protects a work does not control every use of that work.1 Understanding what your copyright allows you to control— and what remains out of your control—is critical to thinking about how to license things. For example, you may have a copyright on a file that represents an object, but not on the object itself. In that case, you should be clear-eyed about the fact that even the most restrictive license on the file will not stop people from reproducing the object without your permission.
Choose your license
After you understand what parts of your work are protected by copyright, and what that copyright protections actually mean, it is time to think about licensing. Once you understand what you have the legal right to control, you can start deciding how you want to exercise that control. This Paper is Only About Copyright Your 3D object might be protected by more than copyright. It could be protected by patent, or by trademark.
So why is this paper only about copyright?
Mostly because copyright protection is free. If you create something that is eligible for copyright protection, it automatically gets copyright protection free of charge. There are good reasons to register your copyright, but registration is not required for protection. This means that you get a copyright without ever filling out paperwork, consulting a lawyer, or even wanting it in the first place
 |
THE BATTLE OF COPYRIGHT Source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:THE_BATTLE_OF_COPYRIGHT.jpg |
Three dimensional printing turns bits into atoms. The technology is simply amazing. These machines draw on programming, art and engineering to enable people to design and build intricate, beautiful, functional jewelry, machine parts, toys and even shoes. In the commercial sector, 3D printing can revolutionize supply chains as well. As the public interest group Public Knowledge wrote once, "It will be awesome if they don't screw it up."
The age of publicly accessible 3D printers and printing services is finally here, but are our legal doctrines up to the task of protecting the public while not screwing up a fantastic new tool? Stanford Law Professors Mark Lemley and Nora Freeman Engstrom, the CEO of Shapeways, the founder of Printrbot, the president of Airwolf 3D, and CIS Director of Civil Liberties Jennifer Granick discuss the product liablity and intellectual property issues surrounding this innovation.
Panelists:Moderator:
- Mark Lemley - William H. Neukom Professor of Law at Stanford Law School
- Nora Freeman Engstrom - Associate Professor of Law at Stanford Law School
- Peter Weijmarshausen - CEO of Shapeways, 3D printing marketplace and community
- Brook Drumm - Founder of Printrbot, a desktop 3D printer you can build in a couple hours
- Erick Wolf - Intellectual Property Attorney and President of Airwolf 3D, an affordable, durable, and easy-to-use 3D printer
Jennifer Granick - Director of Civil Liberties at Stanford CIS
May 16, 2013
Stanford Law School
Hosted by the Stanford Center for Internet and Society
"Legal encapsulation is not effectively possible," declares Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed, makers of the world's first gun made via 3D printing technology. "So it's fun to kind of challenge the state to greater and greater levels of its own hyper-statism."
Last year, Wilson and crew unveiled The Liberator, a plastic pistol they created on a 3D printer that fired a shot heard around the world. Then they put the 3D-printing files (or CADs) up on the Internet for free. To folks interested in cutting-edge technology and decentralized experiments in living, Wilson's gun symbolized an age of uncontrollable freedom. To lawmakers, it symbolized a threat that moved faster than, well, a speeding bullet. The State Department, in fact, shut down Defense Distributed's ability to disseminate the gun files on the Internet, claiming the nonprofit was violating federal rules about exporting munitions.
A self-declared crypto-anarchist, the 26-year-old Wilson is fighting the situation in court—and relishing every minute of his battle with the government.Stay safe people ... liberty is responsibility ...
While he's aggressively challenging restrictions on 3D-printed guns, Wilson is also working on an innovative Bitcoin project called Dark Wallet, which would further anonymize financial transactions on the Web, and a book intended to inspire a new generation of digital libertarians.
 |
| Cyndi Tetro |
Unless you've been living under a rock, you've undoubtedly come across countless articles discussing the potential for 3D printing to revolutionize product design and manufacturing. As with any new technology, however, existing laws, particularly copyright laws, are not always equipped to keep up with these advancements. This event will include a live demonstration of 3D printing and a discussion of its capabilities from David Struve of Struve Designs, an award-winning design firm. Lisa Moore and Elizabeth Wheeler of The Moore Firm, LLC will then discuss the many copyright issues that this technology raises and sort through whether these issues are likely to result in any real disruption of copyright-reliant industries.
According to the court’s spokeswoman Ilse Westenenk, the courtroom regularly works together with the college. ‘That’s why we gave them permission, but obviously after checking they were actual Avans students,’ she said.
The spokeswoman further revealed that the court was already aware of these loopholes in the security system, but added that this experiment will not lead to a tightening of security.
‘We have known for some time that knives of this kind cannot be detected by metal scanners. 3D printed weapons simply require other security measures. But for now we will uphold the current balance between security and transparency,’ she said. The courtroom and its corridors are also patrolled by security personnel.
