Abstract
Because domestic and low-cost 3D printers and 3D scanners have gradually increased in recent years, the purpose of using these machines has transferred from previous "industrial production" to current "personal-use creation", as do-it-yourself recently. This trend may make an influence on our Copyright Act. Therefore, base on the traditional concept of reproduction, adaptation and exploitation, we aim to discuss this issue with the appearance of domestic 3D printer and 3D scanner, attempting to figure out the obstacles to the use of Taiwan's Copyright Act. In our discussion, we try to see if a "CAD design" could be regarded as "artistic works", or should be deemed as "pictorial and graphical works" just as IPO used to stand in its opinion with regard to the 2D-3D conversion issue. In which the conversion was also be considered as an conduct out of the scope of Copyright Act just because the conversion was conducted through a "machine". Accordingly, due to the complicated opinions on this kind of works as well as the trait of CAD design, which is indispensable to 3D printing so as to be explained as an "applied art", we suggest that we add new provisions to our current Copyright Act. That is, adding "CAD Design"or "3D Printing Works" as an individual just as "architectural works" did. Besides, giving the conduct of 3D printing and 3D scanning a more specific definition separately, no matter it should be seemed as reproduction or adaptation. Especially in the situation of 3D printing, we should take the "art creation" purpose into consideration in order to protect the works through 3D printing. On the other hand, we try to discuss another issue regarding 3D printing and 3D scanning in the other part. That is, due to the trend of using 3D printer and 3D scanner as a " personal-use art creation " method, the traditional classification on "pure arts", "works of artistic craftsmanship" and "products which are not protected by Copyright Act" has to be revised. As above mentioned, the key point of "machine made" might deprive the 3D works of the protection of Copyright Act. For this reason, we will view this issue from another point of view, trying to see if the creator's subject manner could be taken into account. In addition, for there is no denying that the line between "artistic works" and "industrial products" will be blurred with the domestic use of 3D printer and scanner, we reaffirm to give a subject matter copyright and patent right at the same time.