Search

Phoebe Li is a Lecturer at Sussex University. Stephen Mellor, James Griffin, Charlotte Waelde, Liang Hao, and Richard Everson are based at Exeter University.The emergence of 3D printing technology as a ‘disruptive technology’ challenges the existing intellectual property framework. Our paper considers one part of that framework - copyright - in the light of 3D printing, with a special focus on issues involving artistic works and liability for authorisation of infringement of copyright.We consider a scenario concerning consumer co-creation arising from 3D chocolate printing technology developed at Exeter University. We discuss the production of two-dimensional artistic works into three dimensions; ownership; originality and substantial copying; authorship, term of protection, and authorisation of infringement.We consider different business models for co-creation of 3D printing technology. We conclude that by resorting to collective bargaining mechanisms and collective licensing schemes akin to those developed in the UK and in Europe, the co-creators could be rewarded through mechanisms akin to benefit sharing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the consultation response programme of the British and Irish Legal, Education and Technology Association (BILETA) and the Information Technology Think Tank (ITTT). The programme is expected to benefit IT providers and end users who have been facing a paradigm shift. The plan to obtain external funding support to ensure the sustainability of the project is also cited.

Biomodifying technologies-such as gene editing, induced pluripotent stem cells, and bioprinting-are being developed for a wide range of applications, from pest control to lab-grown meat. In medicine, regulators have responded to the challenge of evaluating modified 'natural' material as a therapeutic 'product' by introducing more flexible assessment schemes. Attempts have also been made to engage stakeholders across the globe on the acceptable parameters for these technologies, particularly in the case of gene editing. Regulatory flexibility and stakeholder engagement are important, but a broader perspective is also needed to respond to the potential disruption of biomodification. Our case-study technologies problematize basic ideas-such as 'nature', 'product', and 'donation'-that underpin the legal categories used to regulate biotechnology. Where such foundational concepts are rendered uncertain, a socially responsive and sustainable solution would involve exploring evolutions in these concepts across different societies. We suggest that the global observatory model is a good starting point for this 'Adaptive Societal Governance' approach, in which a self-organizing network of scholars and interested parties could carry out the multi-modal (meta)analyses needed to understand societal constructions of ideas inherent to our understanding of 'life'., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Duke University School of Law, Harvard Law School, Oxford University Press, and Stanford Law School.)