Intellectual Property Protection of 3D Printing Using Secured Streaming

  • Paula-Mai Sepp
  • Anton Vedeshin
  • Pawan Dutt


3D printing technology is a new and emerging technology which is capable of changing the world. However, an easy access to 3D printing technology makes a convenient way to illegally reproduce physical objects regardless of copyrights, license, and royalty payments. As 3D printing of physical things at home might become the “new normal,” it will pose threats to traditional intellectual property laws, which were created in an era when copyright infringement of physical objects, or also defined as “physibles,” was yet to come. The authors have brought forward the legal issues and have attempted to describe a unique technical solution—secured streaming which solves or at least partially solves the problem of copyrights in 3D printing. The proposed solution provides a possibility for a copyright owner to limit the number of 3D prints. He can specify the number of copies that are allowed for the manufacturer or an end user to produce. Moreover, secured streaming has detective and protective controls to detect information system compromises and to stop streaming of 3D designs to 3D printers.


Copyright Protection Digital Right Management Copyright Owner Technical Drawing Royalty Payment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Akester P (2005) Copyright and the P2P challenge. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 27(3):106–112Google Scholar
  2. Bradshaw S, Bowyer A, Haufe P (2010) The intellectual property implications of low-cost 3D printing. ScriptEd 7(1):7–8Google Scholar
  3. Daly M (2007) Life after Grokster: analysis of US and European approaches to file-sharing. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 29(8):319–324Google Scholar
  4. Dasari H (2013) Assessing copyright protection and infringement issues involved with 3D printing and scanning. Am Intellect Prop Law Assoc Q J 41:279Google Scholar
  5. Doherty D (2012) Downloading infringement: patent law as a roadblock to the 3D printing revolution. Harv J Law Technol 26:358Google Scholar
  6. Dolinsky K (2014) CAD’s cradle: untangling copyrightability, derivative works, and fair use in 3D printing. Washington Lee Law Rev 71:629–631Google Scholar
  7. Garnett KM, Davies G, Harbottle G (2005) Copinger and Skone James on Copyright. Sweet & Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Giblin R (2012) Stranded in the technological dark ages: implications of the Full Federal Court’s decision in NRL v Optus. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(9):632–641Google Scholar
  9. Haque H (2008) Is the time ripe for another exclusive right? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 30(9):371–378Google Scholar
  10. Howells JAJ (2014) The intellectual property right implications of consumer 3D printing. Available at: (accessed: 06.08.2015), p 13
  11. Karapapa S (2011) Padawan v SGAE: a right to private copy? Eur Intellect Prop Rev 33(4):252–259Google Scholar
  12. Key-Matuszak P (2013) Time-shifting after NRL v Optus: a need for amendments. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 35(8):439–444Google Scholar
  13. Khaosaeng K (2014) Wands, sandals and the wind: creativity as a copyright exception. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 36(4):238–249Google Scholar
  14. Lewis A (2014) The legality of 3D printing: how technology is moving faster than the law. Tulane J Technol Intellect Prop 17:315–316Google Scholar
  15. Merges RP, Menell PS, Lemley MA (2012) Intellectual property in the new technological age. Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, Aspen Casebook Series, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Monotti AL (2013) Liability for joint infringement of a method patent under Australian law. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 35(6):318–326Google Scholar
  17. Mylly UM (2009) Harmonizing copyright rules for computer program interface protection. Univ Louisville Law Rev 48Google Scholar
  18. Nyman-Metcalf N, Dutt PK, Chochia A (2014) The freedom to conduct business and the right to property: the EU technology transfer block exemption regulation and the relationship between intellectual property and competition law. In: Kerikmae T (ed) Protecting human rights in the EU. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Osborn LS (2014) Of PhDs, pirates and the public: three-dimensional printing technology and the arts. Texas A&M Law Rev 1Google Scholar
  20. Raval MI (2012) Game over for mod chips? The aftermath of Sony v Stevens and the Australian-US Free Trade Agreement. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(2):95–107Google Scholar
  21. Rideout B (2011) Printing the impossible triangle: the copyright implications of three-dimensional printing. J Bus Entrep Law 5:167–168Google Scholar
  22. Savola P (2014) Blocking injunctions and website operators’ liability for copyright infringement for user-generated links. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 36(5):279–288Google Scholar
  23. Stahl H (2013) 3D printing–risks and opportunities. Öko-Institut e.V. Institute for Applied Ecology, pp 3–4Google Scholar
  24. Toeniskoetter SB (2005) Protection of software intellectual property in Europe: an alternative sui generis approach. Intellect Prop Law Bull 10Google Scholar
  25. Twomey P (2014) A new dimension to intellectual property infringement: an evaluation of the intellectual property issues associated with 3D printing. Trinity Coll Law Rev 17:33Google Scholar
  26. Weinberg M (2013) What’s the deal with copyright and 3D printing?. White paper from Public Knowledge’s Institute for Emerging Innovation, p 1Google Scholar
  27. Xiaoxiang Shi S (2012) Time shifting in a networked digital world: Optus TV Now and copyright in the cloud. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(8):519–533Google Scholar
  28. Yan M (2012) The law surrounding the facilitation of online copyright infringement. Eur Intellect Prop Rev 34(2):122–126Google Scholar


  1. Sony Corporation of America v Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984).Google Scholar
  2. CBS Songs Ltd v Amstrad Consumer Electronics Plc [1988] A.C. 1013Google Scholar
  3. Recording Industry Association of America v Diamond Multimedia Systems Inc 180 F. 3d 1072 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. Metro-Golwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. Supreme Court of the United States 545 U.S. 913 (2005).Google Scholar
  5. Copyright Act 1956 (UK)Google Scholar
  6. Copyright act 1976, 17 U.S.C.Google Scholar
  7. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 1988Google Scholar
  8. Directive 96/9/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 1996 on the legal protection of databases OJ L 077, 27.03.1996.Google Scholar
  9. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2000/C 364/01)Google Scholar
  10. Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designsGoogle Scholar
  11. Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs. OJ L 111/16, 5.5.2009.Google Scholar
  12. Levine, B. (2014). Will 3D Printing Turn Lego Into an Intellectual Property Publisher? Available at: (accessed 20.08.2015)
  13. Gartner, (2013). Press release: Gartner Reveals Top Predictions for IT Organizations and Users for 2014 and Beyond. Available at: (accessed 20.08.2015)
  14. New Balance (2013). Press release: New Balance Pushes the Limits of Innovation with 3D Printing. Available at: (accessed 20.08.2015)
  15. Walters, R. (2012). The Pirate Bay Declares 3D Printed “Physibles” as the Next Frontier of Piracy. Available at: (accessed 06.08.2015).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ministry of Justice of Republic of EstoniaTallinnEstonia
  2. 2.3DPrinter OSTallinnEstonia
  3. 3.Tallinn Law School, Tallinn University of TechnologyTallinnEstonia

Personalised recommendations