Shapeways Files Brief Urging for Stronger 3D Printing Copyrighting Laws

Shapeways has recently filed a brief with the US Supreme Court that urges them to repair and provide clarity to the copyright infringement laws that are plaguing 3D printing designers. Shapeways law expert Michael Weinberg argues that the current laws encourage patent trolls and engrossed compensation for minor infractions, and that the law should be altered to follow utility patent infringement laws, which work in much more proportionately manner compared design patent laws. Read more at 3DPrint.com: https://3dprint.com/138364/shapeways...-patent-brief/
https://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploa...008-300x80.png

That Shapeways lawyer has certainly been busy lately. First, he declares that 3D scans don't deserve any copyright protection (see http://3dprintboard.com/showthread.p...on-Information ), and now he's weighing in on a dispute involving the stripes on cheerleader's uniforms:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/pres...varsity-brands. After some digging, I was able to retrieve the brief mentioned above: http://www.shapeways.com/wordpress/w...ways-FILED.pdf

It doesn't actually talk about patents at all, but is concerned entirely with copyright, which is a different way of protecting intellectual property, that focuses on the artistic aspects of an object rather than the functional ones covered by design patents. The difficulty arises when certain manufactured (or 3D printed) objects contain both artistic/decorative elements as well as functional ones. Essentially, it's asking for a clear and simple test that will determine what aspects of a design can be protected, and which cannot, and a way of apportioning damages that separates out the impact of each design feature so as to determine the value added by the particular feature that's been infringed on without declaring the whole object to be in violation of the law.

While I understand that Shapeways and the cosigners of this brief want to be able to print things people send them without incurring any legal liability, I don't see how this simple clear test could possibly work in practice. Should they be required to do a search of every object in the world to examine it feature-by-feature and identify any infringing aspects before agreeing (or refusing) to print it? If, for instance, someone sends in a coffee mug with a blue dog for a handle, would they have to get permission from George Rodrigue (the blue dog painter) before printing it? To me, this seems like an impossible burden. But copyright law is pretty specific - anything that can be proved to be "derivative" of a copyrighted work infringes on it and is subject to sanctions. I don't see how the Court, even if it had the wisdom of Solomon, can make the problem go away by devising a test question. The best thing they could do would be to remove the liability for copyright violations from service providers and fix it entirely on the individuals providing the designs for production. That way, if someone believes their copyright has been violated, they can take it up with the violator directly, and not be empowered to raid the deeper pockets of an innocent service provider, or printer manufacturer.

Andrew Werby
www.computersculpture.com