Protection can thus be awarded if the appearance does not stem solely from its technical function and if the substantial requirements are met.Ī less promising conclusion can be drawn from articles 36(1)(c) and 36(5) of the CDR, as it is still required by the implementing regulations that designs need to be represented in a manner suitable for static reproduction, which includes paper reproductions and specifically paper registration certificates. The features that are mentioned, chiefly its material, sufficiently cover different or changing shapes, which means that 4D printed products can be included in the current definition of “design” under CDR. This definition is very broad and while it clarifies that the appearance results from its “lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation”, it does not necessarily follow that 4D products are excluded from protection, although it could be argued that the gradual change in shape of a product is not expressly mentioned. In other words, the shape of the product might be different at any given time, depending on how they were programmed to act to certain environmental stimuli.Ī “design” is defined by article 3(a) of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR) as the “appearance of the whole or a part of a product”.
This could change over time as more users get access to 3D printing machines and will start to use the schematics of others with commercial intent.Īs 4D printing technologies build upon 3D technologies, the legal issues relating to the scope of industrial property and its limits will remain.įrom a legal point of view, the most novel aspect of 4D printing relates to the changing shape of its products as they are not static and change over time. While conflicts between 3D printing and IP rights have already made the news (see, Just 3D Print v Stratasys / Makerbot, Philidelphia), the true impact has not yet been felt to a larger extent because 3D printing machines are not widespread. Many users of 3D printing tech-if not most-do not breach IP laws, as they share schematics or print products that are new designs in their own right or where said uses are not in conflict with any exclusive industrial design rights, including private uses. New technologies that democratise access to the tools of production or allow creative materials to be freely shared will certainly overlap with the principles of IP. This will increase the viability of scientific projects such as the recent James Webb Space Telescope (which used origami technics) or Elon Musk’s plans to colonise Mars, where space cargo needs to be maximised.ģD printing created many legal discussions focusing on the scope of industrial design rights and its limits, in a similar fashion to how the introduction of peer-to-peer technologies started discussions in copyright-intensive creative industries. The organisation of space cargo greatly impacts the cost of rocket launches and the use of 4D printed materials can increase the quantity of cargo that will be able to be transported. Like many futuristic technologies, the prospect of real-life applications of 4D printing are immense, with the most promising (in my view) being applications for space. Both were developed by Skylar Tibbits’ team at Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Self-Assembly Lab ( link with videos of the technology in action).
The technology already has practical applications: a sheet of plastic can transform itself into a cube when it comes into contact with water or a simple string that reveals a hidden message when you add it to water. This technique is also known as active origami or shape-morphing. Whereas 3D printing technologies allow users to construct a 3D product, 4D technologies allow a 2D product to gradually change its shape over time in response to an external stimulus or energy source. 4D printing adds a new dimension to the process: time.
0 kommentar(er)
