3D Printing: Is the Law Prepared for the Future of Fashion?
November 17, 2016Archives . Authors . Feature . Feature Img . Recent Stories ArticleBy Arielle Padover
Commonplace three-dimensional (3D) printing may seem far off; however, it seems to be arriving quicker than some might have anticipated, particularly in the fashion industry. According to David Sheffler, a researcher and lecturer at the University of Virginia School of Engineering and Applied Science, “3D printing is where PCs were in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.” In fashion specifically, Joris Debo, the creative director of Materialise, notes that while it is “a slow process of adoption,” 3D printing in fashion has changed “quite rapidly” in the past few years. While we probably have quite a while before people can say “I’ll be ready as soon as I print my shoes,” it is extremely important that lawmakers proactively address the legal issues that will inevitably arise due an increase in 3D printing.
3D printing allows people to turn a digital file into a three-dimensional object by successively layering material until the object is formed. 3D printing has been gradually making its way into the mainstream, with companies like UPS and Staples offering 3D printing services. It will likely continue to become an even more familiar process as 3D printers become increasingly more affordable and, therefore, more accessible to small businesses and even individuals.
While 3D printing isn’t quite the norm in the fashion world yet, it is an emerging trend. Last year, Adidas introduced the Futurecraft 3D prototype, “a 3D printed running shoe midsole which can be tailored to the cushioning needs of an individual’s foot.” In May, the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Costume Institute Benefit unveiled an exhibit entitled “Manus x Machina: Fashion in an Age of Technology,” which featured various articles of clothing made using 3D printing technology. In August, Michael Phelps sported a pair of Under Armour 3D printed sneakers at the Rio Olympics, customized with his son’s footprint on the sole of the shoe. Even for those of us who are not Michael Phelps, it is easy to find 3D printed products such as jewelry, eyewear, and shoes on the market. 3D printing is beginning to play a more prevalent role in fashion.
In the future consumers may be able to purchase the digital file of an item and print their clothes at home using that file. Among other benefits, this process will likely open the door for customer customization, allowing customers to tailor their clothes to fit them exactly or change aspects of the clothes that they do not like.
Along with these benefits, however, this new technology brings new legal problems. Hip-hop artist and fashion designer Kanye West has expressed concerns that 3D printing will ruin the fashion industry in the same way that “the Internet destroyed the music industry.” That is, he is concerned that 3D printers will enable people to make counterfeit and knockoff goods in the same way that peer-to-peer file-sharing services like Napster enabled the illegal download of music. These concerns are not invalid: a recent study found that almost 10% of clothing, shoes, and accessories sales in Europe are lost to counterfeiting, directly resulting in over 300,000 jobs lost (over 500,000 including jobs lost indirectly) and €26.3 billion of revenue lost each year (approximately $29 billion USD). The law will have to find a way to prevent these statistics from being exacerbated by 3D printing.
In addition to concerns related to preventing counterfeiting, other intellectual property issues are raised by 3D printing apparel. For example, if a customer substantially customizes a 3D printed top by changing the V-neck to a scoop neck, changing the color, changing it from being long sleeved to short sleeved, or does all of the above, who will be deemed the owner of the “new” design? The owner of a design is entitled to prevent others from using that design. However, when the lines regarding ownership are blurred, protecting designs becomes difficult. Leaving designs vulnerable to exploitation could result in designers not receiving due credit for their work and dilution of brand equity. Without these protections, the fashion industry would likely be negatively impacted because designers will no longer be motivated to innovate.
Product liability issues and regulatory issues will also likely come up. The government will need to put laws in place to address which party (the designer, the digital file creator, the customer, etc.) is responsible for defective apparel products when the customer is the de facto manufacturer of the goods. Further, in the United States, textile and apparel products must have a label containing certain information, and it will become important that the government is able to continue monitoring labeling practices if apparel is printed at home.
This is not to say that the future of the fashion industry is doomed. Despite Kanye West’s worries, just as the Internet did not “destroy” the music industry, 3D printing will likely not destroy the fashion industry. Laws were adjusted and created to better address the issues created by updated technology as it pertained to music. Similarly, courts will need to adapt and interpret existing laws to answer the questions that 3D printing raises and lawmakers will need to create new laws to answer the questions that the existing legal framework cannot. So, while the prospect of printing clothing at home may seem incredibly convenient, the convenience may not be worth the risk until the legal questions are addressed.
You may also like
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- October 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- August 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010