*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: LTA.Service@thomsonreuters.com or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Australian Intellectual Property Journal (Volume 27 Part 4) contains the following material:
The Multiple Dimensions of Intellectual Property Infringement in the 3D Printing Era – Jane Nielsen and John Liddicoat
3D printing is a technology that has the potential to revolutionise manufacturing as we know it. While 3D printing is becoming mainstream, few consumers of printing services have the capacity to undertake their own printing. Around the technology, a service industry is burgeoning, as consumers increasingly seek to explore what the technology has to offer via printing studios. This article explores the intellectual property (IP) implications of the services offered by these providers as 3D printing apparently increases the capacity of ordinary consumers to infringe IP rights under multiple regimes. As such, the primary aim of this article is to consider whether the perception of legal risk possessed by stakeholders operating in this space necessarily aligns with actual legal risk. It does so by exploring the results of a study conducted in respect of 3D printing studios, and aligning this with the legal issues that may emerge in the context of patent, copyright and designs under Australian law.
Public Lending Right (PLR) and Educational Lending Right (ELR) schemes are remunerating Australian authors and publishers for making available their books in Australian libraries. However, e-books are currently not included under these schemes. With the expansion of the e-book market and e-lending services within Australian libraries, it has been suggested that the schemes should be technologically neutral and extend to include e-books. After an extensive analysis of the technological neutrality principle, this article concludes this principle does not impose a legal obligation to extend PLR and ELR to e-books since traditional lending and e-lending are not functionally and economically equivalent services. Nevertheless, such an extension could be favourable when taking into account other economic, cultural and political circumstances.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: AIPJ Vol 27 No 4 Contents.
For general queries, please contact: firstname.lastname@example.org.