“Applied Arts under IP Law:
The Uncertain Border between Beauty and Usefulness”
QUESTIONNAIRE
GERMANY (answers by Mina Kianfar)
1) APPLIED ARTS
a) Is the term “Applied Arts” used in the Copyright Law and/or in other legal provisions in your
country?
If so, is there is a legal definition of this term in your law? Please quote the relevant statutory provision
and/or case law definition.
Yes, the German Copyright Act uses the term “applied arts” in Art. 2 para. 1 item 4. Under this
provision, copyright protection is granted for “artistic works” including works of applied art and drafts
thereof provided that these are the author’s “own intellectual creations” within the meaning of Art. 2
para. 2 of the German Copyright Act.
The German Copyright Act does not provide for a definition of the term “applied arts”. The term is
rather used in its general meaning according to which works of applied art are objects of utility that
are artistically designed. Their functional purpose distinguishes them from works of fine art which
are developed primarily for aesthetics or beauty and do not serve any practical function (paintings,
drawings, etchings, graphic works, sculptures and the like). Typical examples of works of applied art
are pieces of furniture, lamps, cutlery, toys or other everyday objects that are designed in an artistic
way. Works of applied art are often factory-made and mass-produced, but can also be unique pieces.
The level of originality required for protection is less a matter of the term’s definition but rather one
of the requirements for protection with regard to the respective intellectual property right. Thus, an
object of applied art does not necessarily enjoy copyright or industrial property protection (see reply
to question 2 below).
Even though the term “applied art” is not expressly mentioned in the relevant industrial property
related statute law, objects that fall in this category can enjoy industrial property protection and
especially design protection.
b) What is included in the scope of the term “applied arts” in your law:
-
industrial design (registered and unregistered)
Yes, objects whose design is protected by a registered or an unregistered industrial design can
constitute works of applied arts that are protected by copyright, industrial property rights and/or
competition law.
-
See Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt (OLG Frankfurt), GRUR 1981, 739 – Lounge Chair
holding that the “lounge chair” by Charles Eames enjoys copyright protection
1
-
-
Higher Regional Court in Schleswig, GRUR-RR 2015, 1 – Geburtstagszug II holding that a
wooden toy train to which birthday candles and numbers can be attached does not meet the
threshold of originality and is thus not protected by copyright (The Higher Regional Court in
Schleswig issued this judgment after the German Federal Supreme Court [“BGH”] had sent
the case back for further fact-finding, see below)
-
BGH GRUR 2012, 58 – Seilzirkus holding that a climbing net for playgrounds falls under the
category of applied art rather than fine art but denying copyright protection because the
design follows technical requirements
graphic design
Yes, the term “applied arts” does cover graphic design.
2
-
fashion design
Yes.
-
interior design
No, interior design does not fall under the category of “applied arts” but can rather enjoy copyright
protection as a “work of architecture” under Art. 2 para. 1 item 4 of the German Copyright Act.
-
decorative arts
Yes.
-
engineering design
In principle, yes, but building and architectural related engineering such as architect plans fall under
the separate category of “work of architecture”.
-
architecture
No, works of architecture belong in a category of their own, Art. 2 para. 1 item 4 of the German
Copyright Act.
-
photography
No, photographic works belong in a category of their own, Art. 2 para. 1 item 5 of the German
Copyright Act.
-
other



Stage design
Stuffed toys
Jewelry (see BGH, GRUR 1995, 581 – Silberdistel holding that due to its functional purpose
a flower shaped clip earring is a work of applied art rather than a work of fine art)
Explain and quote/summarize relevant statutory and/or case law for each of the above. Whenever
feasible, please attach the picture of the work/object considered in the case (or the relevant
hyperlink).
Quote any legal provisions and/or case law highlighting the relationship and/or distinction between:
-
applied arts and fine arts
BGH GRUR 2012, 58 para. 17 – Seilzirkus: the Court concluded that a climbing net for playgrounds
serve a functional purpose and therefore falls under the category of applied art rather than fine art.
-
applied arts and technical solutions for products/methods or principles of construction
-
applied arts and products of craftsmanship
-
applied arts and the role of computer aided design (CAD software)
2) TYPES OF PROTECTION APPLICABLE TO APPLIED ARTS
a) What forms of protection are granted by law or case law in your country for each of the items
under 1.b) above?
To begin with, it is important to note that the mere classification under the category of “applied art”
does not automatically trigger copyright or industrial property protection but those rights are only
3
granted if in the individual case the specific requirements of the particular intellectual property right
are met.
Copyright and industrial design protection are the most relevant types of protection with regard
to applied arts.
-
copyright
German law grants copyright protection for each of the items under 1.b) above provided that it can
be qualified as the author’s own intellectual creation and therefore constitutes a “work” in the
meaning of Art. 2 para. 2 of the German Copyright Act. This requires that the “creation”
-
is made by a natural person and
expressed in any objectively perceptible form,
that it is individual and
meets the level of originality required for copyright protection.
The originality-criterion can only be met where the design is not prescribed by technical
requirements but where freedom for artistic influence exists. Thus, in order to be eligible for
copyright protection an item of utility has to be artistically designed beyond the form its function
requires. The same applies to works of architecture.
Simple creations may enjoy copyright protection (so-called “kleine Münze”, literally “small coin”)
whereas average designs do not meet the threshold of originality.
In the past, German courts held that for applied art a higher degree of originality is required to
grant copyright protection than for any other category of work. They argued that since applied art
was eligible for protection by industrial design, copyright protection could only be granted in case
the level of originality substantially exceeded the average level of designer skills.
In its decision of 13 November 2013, I ZR 143/12 (“Geburtstagszug”), the German Federal Court of
Justice abandoned this concept and ruled that the general degree of originality required for the
grant of copyright protection equally applies to all categories of works.
Consequently, applied art does no longer have to meet increased requirements on originality in
order to enjoy copyright protection.
4
-
industrial designs (registered and unregistered)
Registered design
Each of the items under 1.b) above can be subject to design protection provided that the design is
new and possesses an individual character in comparison with other designs. Design elements that
solely result from technical functions of the product are excluded from design protection, cf. Artt. 2,
3 of the German Design Act.
The German Design Act does not grant protection for the individual product as such but for its
outward appearance that can be used in industrial or handicraft production.
Art. 2 para. 2 and 3 of the German Design Act define the term “new” and “individual” in accordance
with Art. 4 and 5 of the EU directive 98/71/EC: a design is new when no identical design has been
revealed to the public prior to the application date; designs are identical if their characteristics differ
from each other only in unessential details.
A design has individual character if its overall impression differs from the overall impression of an
older design (which has been revealed to the public prior to the application date). Where the designer
has only limited degree of freedom in developing his design, small differences from other designs
may suffice in order to produce a different overall impression on the informed user.
In assessing the scope of protection, the degree of freedom of the designer in developing his design
is to be taken into consideration. Design elements that are solely owed to a function of the product
cannot be subject to a design right.
Unlike copyright law, design law does not require originality of the design. In this regard, the
requirements for obtaining a registered design are lower than those for copyright protection.
Unregistered Community design
German law does not provide for national unregistered design rights. Protection for unregistered
designs is only granted based on the Community Design Regulation.
-
trade marks
Trade marks
In principle, each of the items under 1.b) above may also be subject to trade mark protection.
According to Art. 3 para. 1 of the German Trade Mark Act, every sign, especially words including
personal names, figures, letters, numbers, sound signs, three-dimensional designs including the
shape of goods or their packaging as well as other appearances including colors and color
compilations may be protected as a trade mark provided that they can distinguish the goods and/or
services of one enterprise from those of another.
Art. 3 para. 2 of the German Trade Mark Act (which corresponds to Art. 3 para. 1 lit. e) of the Trade
Mark Directive 2008/95/EC) excludes signs from trade mark registration if they exclusively consist
of a shape which: (i) results from the nature of the goods themselves, (ii) is necessary to obtain a
technical result, or (iii) gives substantial value to the goods.
The third ground for refusal is highly controversial. In its previous case law, the German Federal
Court of Justice limited the practical impact of the substantial value exception by only applying it in
cases where the product’s shape is the only reason for purchasing it. In its decision Fronthaube, the
Court held that the shape of a bonnet top of a vehicle is eligible for trade mark registration since the
5
aesthetically appealing design is only one of a number of valuable elements of the product but not
of primary importance compared to the utility of the bonnet as a technical component:
“The exception can only then prevent the protection of an aesthetically valuable shape, when the
public only sees the substantial value of the goods in the aesthetic content of the shape and when
it can therefore be viewed from the outset as impossible that the form in addition to its aesthetic
effect can at least get the function of an indication of origin.” BGH GRUR 2008, 71 para. 18 –
Fronthaube
Following the BGH’s utility-based approach, the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) held that the
substantial value exception does not exclude Ludwig Mies van der Rohe’s “Barcelona Chair” from
trade mark registration. The Court concluded from the product’s primary use as seating furniture that
the value of the shape does not only in the aesthetic appearance but also in the ergonomics of the
chair (BPatG, decision of 8 June 2011, 26 W (pat) 93/08, BeckRS 2011, 25017).
In the case Hauck GmbH & Co. KG v Stokke A/S the CJEU rejected the approach followed by the
German courts holding that “the fact that the shape of a product is regarded as giving substantial
value to that product does not mean that other characteristics may not also give the product
significant value” (CJEU decision of 18 September 2014, C-205/13, para. 30) and “the concept of a
‘shape which gives substantial value to the goods’ cannot be limited purely to the shape of
products having only artistic or ornamental value“.
In view of this clear statement of the CJEU, German courts will have to modify their jurisprudence.
-
patents/utility models
Patent and utility model protection
6
Patent and/or utility model protection is only available for technical inventions. According to Art. 1
para. 3 of the German Patent Act and Art. 1 para. 2 of the German Utility Model Act aesthetic
creations are not protectable as inventions. Thus, an artistic design as such cannot be patented or
enjoy protection as a utility model. Apart from its aesthetic design, an item, or precisely, its underlying
technical teaching may be patentable if it embodies a technical invention which is new, involves an
inventive step, and is suitable for industrial application. In any case, the design itself does not enjoy
patent protection.
-
unfair competition
Unfair competition
In exceptional cases, a work of applied art may also enjoy protection under the German Unfair
Competition Act. However, Unfair Competition law does not provide protection against the replication
of an intellectual work as such (as copyright and industrial property rights do), but instead addresses
the manner in which a competitor makes use of another competitor’s work (cf. BGH WRP 2013,
1189 – Regalsystem; BGH GRUR 2010, 80 – LIKEaBIKE; BGH GRUR 2012, 58 – Seilzirkus).
Therefore, the Unfair Competition Act only applies
-
-
if a competitor replicates the work by unfair means (sec. 4 para. 3 lit. c: “A competitor acts
unfairly when he offers goods or services which are replicas of goods or services of a
competitor if he obtained the knowledge or documents needed to produce the replication
dishonestly”) or
if a competitor uses a replicate of another competitor’s work in an unfair way (sec. 4
para. 3 lit. a and b: “A competitor acts unfairly when he offers goods or services which
are replicas of goods or services of a competitor if he a) causes an avoidable deception
regarding the commercial origin of the goods or services; [or if he] b) unreasonably
exploits or impairs the reputation of the replicated goods or services”).
In addition, the replicated work needs to have competitive individuality (so-called “wettbewerbliche
Eigenart”). This requires that the product features specific characteristics which can indicate its
commercial origin or its particularities (cf. Federal Court of Justice (BGH), GRUR 1995, 581 –
Silberdistel). Characteristics which are – without any alternative – necessary in order to achieve a
certain technical effect and which a competitor who offers similar products therefore must use cannot
constitute competitive individuality (cf. Federal Court of Justice (BGH) GRUR 2010, 80 –
LIKEaBIKE).
-
other
b) Can more than one form of protection be granted to one product? Under which conditions?
Cumulatively or exclusively?
Yes. The various intellectual property rights are not mutually exclusive. Multiple intellectual property
rights can coexist in relation to one work of applied art. Works of applied art can for example be
protected by both, copyright and industrial design rights provided that the respective design meets
the requirements of Art. 2 of the German Copyright Act and of Art. 2 of the German Design Act.
b) Specify for each form of protection:
-
the types of rights granted
-
-
No particularities in this regard.
limits and exceptions
7
-
The limits and exceptions include the statute of limitation, private or other privileged
use, or exhaustion. There are no German peculiarities in this regard.
duration of the protection
-
-
-
Copyright expires 70 years after the author’s death (Art. 64 of the German Copyright Act).
The protection of a registered design lasts 25 years from the application date (Art. 27
para. 2 of the German Design Act).
The duration of protection of a registered trademark begins on the application date and
ends after ten years on the last day of the month in which the application date fell. The
duration of protection can always be extended by 10 years by paying a renewal fee
(Art. 47 of the German Trade Mark Act).
Since protection under the Unfair Competition Act is not an intellectual property right,
there is no specific duration of protection. However, the statute of limitation for claims
under the Unfair Competition Act applies (see Art. 11 of the German Unfair Competition
Act).
threshold requirements for protection, e.g. originality, novelty, distinctiveness
-
See reply to question 2) above.
formalities to obtain the protection (if any)
-
-
Industrial intellectual property rights need to be registered with the German Patent and
Trade Mark Office (Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt, “DPMA”) in order to come into
existence. The process of registration requires the filing of an application and the payment
of a fee. The specific formalities which the application has to satisfy and the procedure at
the DPMA are regulated in the respective statutes.
Copyright does not have to be registered. It comes into existence upon the creation of
the respective work.
original owner of the right
-
-
-
-
Under German Copyright law, the creator of the respective work is the original rightholder.
The creator cannot assign the original ownership of the copyright to others. He can only
grant third parties (exclusive or non-exclusive) exploitation rights in relation to the
protected work, e.g. the right to reproduce the work or the right to distribute it.
The original owner of the right to apply for a registered design is the creator of the
respective work (Art. 7 para. (1) of the German Design Act). The creator can usually
assign this right to third parties. In an employment relationship, Art. 7 para. 2 of the
German Design Act applies. According to this provision, the employer is the original
owner of the right to apply for a registered design for works which an employee creates
in the execution of his duties or according to the instructions of his employer, unless the
parties have contractually agreed differently.
Strictly speaking, there is no original owner of the right to apply for registration of a trade
mark. However, a work of applied art cannot be subject to trade mark registration where
earlier third party rights such as copyright or industrial property rights exist, Art. 13 of the
German Trade Mark Act.
who has the right to sue
-
Usually, the right owner and the exclusive licensee have the right to sue. A nonexclusive licensee can only sue if the right holder has expressly entitled him to do so.
8
-
treatment of foreigners
-
-
For claims under the Unfair Competition Act, the competitor whose products are being
replicated and used by another competitor has the right to sue.
No particularities in this regard.
any other element affecting/determining the protection
9
3) 3D PRINTING
A session of the Congress is devoted to the analysis of the problems raised by the development of
the 3D printing technology, the increasing availability of 3D printers and the digital dissemination of
3D modeling software both for commercial purposes and for private usage.
The expression “3D printing” is currently used to indicate various processes employed to synthesize
and reproduce a three-dimensional object. It is also known as additive manufacturing (AM), but this
definition is reductive since, from a file, there may also be a manufacturing process obtained by
removing material. In the 3D printing, successive layers of material are formed under computer
control to create or reproduce an object. A 3D printer is a type of industrial robot, controlled by
specific software that can be either proprietary, or acquired by license, or open source.
The 3D printing could stem from a 3D modelling or a tridimensional digitalization of a pre-existing
object (that can be a model or a work). The 3D modeling is the process of developing a mathematical,
three-dimensional representation of all the surfaces of an object via specialized software. The 3D
model can be displayed as a two-dimensional image or can be physically created using 3D printing
devices. The objects are produced from a 3D model, or file, or from other electronic data source.
The 3D technology can be used also for the 3D digitalization of existing physical objects, resulting
in digital files (the reverse of 3D modeling).
The issues relating to the applicability of Intellectual Property in 3D printing can be subdivided into
two categories:
i) Issues and rules relating to the software, designs and devices employed for the production of 3D
objects. This category is not affected by the features and the nature of the printed 3D object.
ii) Issues relating to the applicability of Intellectual Property in the creation of files and in the 3D
printing of objects that are protected by Intellectual Property. For example, in Museums, the use of
the 3D printing technology (digitalization and printing) can extend both to the replication and
restoration of artifacts for on-site display and to the educational mission of the institutions with
outside delivery of their artifacts.
This Section of the questionnaire is meant to survey the current situation and trends (possible
evolution of solutions) in the legal framework applicable to the 3D printing ecosystem. For this
purpose, please take into consideration the description above, but feel free, if you believe it useful,
to add any other details and comments that you deem necessary.
You are requested to you answer the following questions to the end of showing the practices, the
questioning and the legal responses, existing or expected. These latter can result from the
application of legal or regulatory solutions - general or specific - or from court decisions or soft law.
10
NB: The questionnaire is long enough to enable a better understanding of the issues and answers.
It is obvious that those people called to respond can do so synthetically and answer only some of
them.
1) Overview
a) Is there reason to distinguish, in legal terms, depending on whether the three-dimensional object is
reproduced by an additive manufacturing process or by a material-removing manufacturing process?
Do you believe that additive manufacturing requires a special legal treatment?
No, additive manufacturing does not require any kind of special legal treatment.
b) Are there been, in your country, public or private initiatives aiming at supporting and legally framing
the printing of three-dimensional objects? If this is the case, can you summarize the main lines and
conclusions?
Both, public and private initiatives support the printing of three-dimensional objects. Private
associations regroup regional companies in order to exploit their capacities and provide mutual
advice. Concrete Examples that can be mentioned are “3D-Druck Solingen”, “3DION” and “Verband
3DDruck Berlin”. The municipalities provide financial support. On that score, the associations
promote research and technological development in the area of three-dimensional printing.
Moreover, the last coalition agreement between the parties SPD and the Greens in Hamburg
explicitly underlined the need of financial support in this area.
c) Several different steps can be distinguished in the chain of 3D printing: modeling/scanning (by
acquisition device or CAD software), digital distribution of 3D models, printing of three-dimensional
objects. Do you believe that there are other important steps requiring specific legal analysis?
The distribution of the three-dimensional objects produced through 3D printing can be added. With
regard to the seller of the object the general legal provisions for the distribution of products apply.
Regarding the operator of a on demand 3D printing service one can discuss the question whether
he can be hold liable for the distribution of infringing 3D printed object.
2) 3D modeling / Creation of the file that will allow, downstream, the reproduction of an object with
a 3D printing process
a) If a pre-existing (two or three-dimensional) object is scanned/digitalized or modeled, must we
consider that the person who carried out the digitalization or modeling can claim rights to the file? If
so, under what conditions?
The modeling of a three-dimensional object can be subject to copyright protection provided that the
criterion of originality is met.
b) Is the modeling and the 3D scanning/digitalization of an object for private use allowed by the law in
your country, and if so under what conditions? Distinguish, if necessary, according to the nature of
the modeled or scanned/digitalized object (work of the spirit, model, invention ...) or the source of
the used object. What about acts made for non-private use?
The modeling/scanning/digitalization of an object for private use falls under the private copying
exception provided that no obviously unlawfully-produced model or a model which has been
unlawfully made available to the public is used, Art. 53 German Copyright Act.
The modeling/scanning/digitalization of an object for non-private use infringes the author’s right of
reproduction, Art. 16 Copyright Act.
11
The mere modeling/scanning/digitalization of an object is a preparatory measure that cannot infringe
patents, design rights or trademarks.
When modeling or three-dimensional scanning for private use is permitted by the law (application of
general law or special text), is this accompanied by a compensation mechanism in favor of the rightholders of the printed object? If so, can you specify the methods of collection and distribution?
The private copying exception is accompanied by an obligation to pay remuneration, Art. 54
Copyright Act. This claim may be asserted only through collecting societies, Art. 54h Copyright Act.
3) Dissemination of 3D models / Making available of files for 3D reproduction
a) Are there in your country websites legally distributing 3D files, for free or for a fee? If so, can you
specify the business model and the legal model (licensing models, liability, etc.)?
-
http://www.wamungo.de/:
http://www.magazin-3d-druck.de/3d-drucker-vorlagendatenbank/
These two are platforms that offer the free exchange of data, designs, concepts, ideas,
contacts and information on trends and innovations in 3D printing. Anyone can post offers,
requests or contributions free of charge.
-
Other platforms, such as http://www.turbosquid.com/, charge fees.
b) Are there in your country platforms allowing users to share 3D files? If so, do these platforms raise
legal problems (distribution licensing models, unauthorized making available ...)? Has there been
any litigation? To your knowledge, did the right-holders conclude contracts with this type of platforms
to authorize the making available of models created by users? If so, how the question of moral rights
has been perceived.
See above for some platforms listed as examples.
Specific legal analysis is required in regards to the digital distribution of 3D models and the
dissemination to third parties.



Uploading a 3D file on a sharing platform may infringe the author’s right of making works
available to the public (Art. 19 a of the German Copyright Act). The upload of a file, which
enables a third party to print an 3D object, can also infringe patent, trademark, design and
utility model rights. Here, the crucial point is whether the digital distribution of 3D models is a
case of direct or indirect infringement:
In relation to patent law, the decision “Loom-Möbel” of the Higher regional court of Düsseldorf
( InstGE 7, 258) can be mentioned as an example for a direct infringement.
According to Art. 10 of the German Patent Act, Art. 11 para. 2 of the German Utility Model
Act and Art. 40 para. 1 of the German Design Act, also an indirect infringement can give rise
to liability. The digital distribution of the 3D model that allows a third party to print and infringe
an industrial or intellectual property right can constitute such indirect infringement. Thus, the
operator of a file-sharing-platform on which users exchange digital 3D models can, in
principle, be responsible for an intellecutal property right infringement (see: the decision
“Internet-Versteigerung III” of the German Federal Supreme Court, CR 2008, 579). In any
case, in favor of the platform operator the liability privilege under Art. 10, 7 para. 2 of the
German Telemedia Act applies.
12
So far, we are not aware of any legal disputes or contracts between rightholders and platform
operators that authorize the making available of models by users.
4) 3D printing / Reproduction of a work, a model or any other object protected by intellectual property
rights
a) Is in your country the 3D printing of an object for private use authorized by law (special law or
application of general law), and if so under what conditions? Distinguish, if necessary, according to
the nature of the modeled or scanned object (work of the spirit, model, invention, etc.) or the source
of the file used. What about acts made for non-private use?
3D printing for private use falls under the private use exceptions in patent law (Art. 11 number 1
German Patent Act), design law (Art. 40 number 1 German Design Act), copyright law (Art. 53
German Copyright Act), trademark law (Art. 14 para. 2 German trademark Act) and utility model law
(Art. 12 number 1 German Utility Model Act). Thus, 3D printing of an object for private use is
authorized by law whereas no exception exists regarding 3D printing for commercial purposes.
b) When the 3D printing for private use is permitted by the law, is this accompanied by a compensation
mechanism in favor of rights-holders of the printed object (and if so, which ones)? If applicable, can
you specify the methods for collection and distribution? In general, do exist in your legislation legal
license mechanisms or compulsory collective management benefiting different categories of
intellectual property rights-holders (for example, copyright and designs and models)?
Only the private copying exception under the Copyright Act is accompanied by an obligation to pay
remuneration, Art. 54 Copyright Act. This claim may be asserted only through collecting societies,
Art. 54h Copyright Act.
c) How does your legislation consider the activity of a service provider that prints 3D object at the
request of an individual, for his private use? Is this service provider responsible for the acts of
reproduction carried out? If so, can it absolve itself, totally or partially, of this responsibility?
Copyright
3D printing can infringe the authors right of reproduction under copyright law if no exception
exception applies. The private copying exception in Art. 53 para. 1 of the German Copyright Act
states the following:
”It shall be permissible for a natural person to make single copies of a work for private use on any
medium, insofar as they neither directly nor indirectly serve commercial purposes, as long as no
obviously unlawfully-produced model or a model which has been unlawfully made available to the
public is used for copying. A person authorised to make copies may also cause such copies to be
made by another person if no payment is received therefore, or if it involves copies on paper or a
similar medium which have been effected by the use of any kind of photomechanical technique or
by some other process having similar effects.”
An operator of 3D printing services on demand is considered as “another person” under this
provision. Since he will usually charge fees for the 3D printing service and 3D printing is no
photomechanical technique or a process with similar effects, the private copying exception does not
apply. Therefore, there can be in fact a unlawful reproduction for which the operator of the 3D printing
service will be hold liable.
13
d) Are there in your country websites offering 3D printing services on demand? If so, do the users have
the option to share the object transmitted for printing? Are these websites implementing control
measures of the transmitted or shared objects (control keywords, fingerprinting ...)? What is under
your legislation the liability regime applicable to those websites (distinguish, if necessary, according
to the nature of the service provided)?
-
https://www.rapidobject.com/: users have no option to share the object transmitted for
printing.
http://www.fabberhouse.de/: users have no option to share the object transmitted for
printing.
http://www.makeyourproduct.com/: users have no option to share the object transmitted
for printing.
http://www.3dprintgalaxy.de/: users have no option to share the object transmitted for
printing.
https://www.meltwerk.com/: users have no option to share the object transmitted for
printing.
https://www.trinckle.com/printorder.php: users have the option to share the object
transmitted for printing; website is not implementing control measures of the transmitted
or shared objects.
In principle, an operator who offers 3D printing on demand is directly responsible for the infringement
of property rights.
5) Technical protection and information measures
a) In the light of possible precedents in your country, does it seem to you that the apprehension of 3D
printing acts within the private sphere through technological protection measures implanted in 3D
printing devices or software is appropriate and feasible?
b) Are there in your country regulatory precedents or soft law aiming to impose to an industrial sector
the implementation of technological protection measures to prevent copying?
We are not aware of such regulatory precedents or soft law in Germany.
c) Are there in your national legislation legal obligations to adapt certain categories of software to
security standards? If so, how are these obligations applied in the field of free software?
Are digital signature or watermarking techniques (fingerprinting, watermarking, etc.) likely to be
implemented to monitor and control the distribution and/or printing of 3D models? Is there any of
such devices in your country? If so, can you describe it? In case it is or will be used a database of
protected 3D models, what are or will be the obligations of the technical service? And what is or will
be the consequence of the lack of registration of a model in such a database.
14