Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

3D Printing: Clarifying Legal Principles and Concepts

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market

  • 2174 Accesses

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has the potential to have a major impact on how consumer goods are produced. It raises important legal questions about the status of software and new legal actors such as 3D printing services and platforms. It also might blur the line between a hobbyist and a trader. The paper argues that reflecting on these issues may need some legal rules to be clarified, but that the existing consumer protection values should continue to inform the law’s development. If anything, the consumer might be in a more vulnerable position compared to when purchasing traditionally produced goods, and in particular the responsibilities of platforms need to be evaluated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Directive (EU) 2019/770 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services: OJ 2019 L136/1.

  2. 2.

    For an explanation of various methods and applications (types of material and end-product), see Barnatt (2014), ch. 2.

  3. 3.

    Sculpteo (2017), p. 19, notes strong growth in the market.

  4. 4.

    Willett (2018), p. 179.

  5. 5.

    Product Liability Directive (85/374/EEC): OJ 1985 L 210/29.

  6. 6.

    Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, OJ L136/28 arts 6–7.

  7. 7.

    Willett (2007), pp. 99–100.

  8. 8.

    Brownsword (2006), pp. 79–85 and Willett (2007), pp. 39–46.

  9. 9.

    Willett (2018) above note 5.

  10. 10.

    I.e. contract, tort and product safety rules applicable to the goods, services or digital content that may play a role in the 3D-printing market.

  11. 11.

    See Part 1, ch. 3 Consumer Rights Act 2015 (ss. 33–47).

  12. 12.

    Sections 34 and 35 Consumer Rights Act 2015.

  13. 13.

    OJ 2019 L136/1.

  14. 14.

    Directive (EU) 2019/771 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, OJ L136/28.

  15. 15.

    Arts. 8–10. See Twigg-Flesner (2020).

  16. 16.

    Arts. 14–18.

  17. 17.

    Art. 3(3). They are likewise excluded from the Consumer Sales Directive: art. 3(4)(a).

  18. 18.

    See Whittaker (2005), p. 477.

  19. 19.

    There is an indication that this issue will be addressed by the European Commission in due course: see European Commission, Artificial Intelligence for Europe COM (2018) 237 final, p. 15. But no reform seems imminent.

  20. 20.

    Cf. European Parliament Resolution of 3 July 2018, Three-dimensional printing: intellectual property rights and civil liability, paras 11–12.

  21. 21.

    For a discussion see inert alia, Whittaker (1989), p. 125; Alheit (2001), p. 188; Howells et al. (2017), pp. 183–195.

  22. 22.

    Under the Australian Consumer Law goods includes software, Sched. 2 S.2.

  23. 23.

    Art.3(2).

  24. 24.

    Directive 1999/44/EC on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees: OJ 1999 L 171/12.

  25. 25.

    Art. 2(3) Consumer Sales Directive (99/44/EC).

  26. 26.

    Sellers have recourse against manufacturers in a way printing services may not if the CAD file is produced by the consumer, though they may also have redress against a third party CAD-file supplier.

  27. 27.

    Arts. 6 and 7.

  28. 28.

    Art.7(5).

  29. 29.

    It goes without saying that the regulatory consumer safety laws should apply to the final products produced, especially the powers to take remedial action.

  30. 30.

    Anderson (2013).

  31. 31.

    Art.2(3) Directive 2019/771/EU.

  32. 32.

    There has been recent CJEU guidance for determining in the context of EU law whether activities are of a business nature. These do not mention explicitly the factors suggested here in the text but are certainly broad enough to encapsulate them: in particular whether transactions are carried out in an organised manner; whether they are intended to generate profit; whether the seller has relevant expertise that the buyer lacks; the legal status of the seller; whether the seller received remuneration or another incentive for conducting transactions; whether the seller purchased new or second hand goods to re-sell them; and whether the goods were al of the same type (C-105/17 Komisia za zashtita na potrebitelite v Evelina Kamenova ECLI:EU:C:2018:808 (judgment of 4 October 2018), paras [38]–[40].

  33. 33.

    Osborn (2014), pp. 553, 573.

  34. 34.

    S. 4(1)(c) Consumer Protection Act 1987.

  35. 35.

    Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC: OJ 2008 L133/66.

  36. 36.

    Directive (EU) 2015/2302 on package travel and linked travel arrangements, amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 90/314/EEC: OJ 2015 L 171/12.

  37. 37.

    Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights: OJ 2011 L304/64.

  38. 38.

    Directive (EU) 2019/2161 as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules: OJ 2019 L328/7.

References

  • Alheit K (2001) The applicability of the EC product liability directive to software. Comp Int Law J South Afr 34:188

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson C (2013) Makers – the new industrial revolution. Random House

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnatt C (2014) 3D printing, explaining the Future.Com, 2nd edn., ch. 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword R (2006) Contract law: themes for the twenty first century, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2018) Artificial Intelligence for Europe, COM 237 final, p 15

    Google Scholar 

  • European Parliament Resolution of 3 July 2018, Three-dimensional printing: intellectual property rights and civil liability, paras 11–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells G et al (2017) Product liability and digital products. Ιn: Synodinou T et al (eds) EU internet law: regulation and enforcement. Springer Nature, pp 183–195

    Google Scholar 

  • Howells G et al (2019) Protecting the values of consumer law in the digital economy: the case of 3D-printing. In: Franceschi De A, Schulze R (eds) Digital revolution – new challenges for law. Beck, Nomos, pp 214–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn LS (2014) Regulating three-dimensional printing: the converging world of bits and atoms. San Diego Law Rev 51:553, 573

    Google Scholar 

  • Sculpteo (2017) The state of 3D printing, p 19

    Google Scholar 

  • Twigg-Flesner C (2020) Conformity of goods and digital content/digital services. In: Arroyo Amayuelas E, Cámara Lapuente S (eds) El Derecho privado en el nuevo paradigma digital. Marcial Pons

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker S (1989) European product liability and intellectual products. LQR 105:125

    Google Scholar 

  • Whittaker S (2005) Liability for products. Oxford University Press, p 477

    Google Scholar 

  • Willett C (2007) Fairness in consumer contracts. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Willett C (2018) Re-theorising consumer law. Camb Law J 77:179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

This chapter draws upon and updates the authors earlier work (Howells et al. 2019).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland

    Geraint Howells

  2. University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Geraint Howells

  3. School of Law, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Christian Twigg-Flesner

  4. University of Essex, Colchester, UK

    Chris Willett

Authors
  1. Geraint Howells
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian Twigg-Flesner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris Willett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Geraint Howells .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Tatiana-Eleni Synodinou

  2. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Philippe Jougleux

  3. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Christiana Markou

  4. School of Law, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus

    Thalia Prastitou-Merdi

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Howells, G., Twigg-Flesner, C., Willett, C. (2021). 3D Printing: Clarifying Legal Principles and Concepts. In: Synodinou, TE., Jougleux, P., Markou, C., Prastitou-Merdi, T. (eds) EU Internet Law in the Digital Single Market. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_21

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69583-5_21

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-69582-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-69583-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation