A legal battle is underway within the 3D printed firearms community. Last year, Florida-based firearm attorney Matthew Larosiere filed a lawsuit against Cody Wilson, best known for his association with the Liberator, one of the first widely available 3D printed gun files.
Larosiere accuses Wilson of stealing his copyrighted gun designs and selling them without permission on the file-sharing site DEFCAD. The case was filed in the U.S District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division. According to the defendants and experts consulted for this article, the case could have wide-ranging implications for open-source 3D printing.
Wilson has hit back against the lawsuit. He claims that the arguments of his gun-designing rival are unfounded because digital files of functional objects, including firearms, are not protected by copyright. The 37-year-old gun rights activist told 3D Printing Industry that Larosiere has resorted to “copyright without principle” out of “basic pride, avarice, and a will to influence the culture of 3D gun printing.”
Open-source advocate Michael Weinberg shared his insights on this case. The OSHWA board member echoed Wilson’s claims that firearms cannot be copyrighted and explained why the lawsuit could establish a precedent that shapes the future of 3D printing.
However, Larosiere maintains that his files, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office (USCO), are protected and cannot be considered “functional” in the digital realm. The plaintiff accuses Wilson of stealing his designs for profit and falsely associating him with a “massively problematic” individual. Dismissing concerns that the lawsuit could have broader implications for open-source, Larosiere called the case an “existential threat” to Wilson’s “business model” of “charging money for other people’s work.”
Larosiere is seeking damages for lost revenue, reputational harm, and legal costs. A partner at Zermay Law Group and former Director of Legal Policy at the Firearms Policy Coalition, he has called for a court order to stop Wilson from redistributing the files.
I also spoke with Dr. Yannick Veilleux-Lepage, an Assistant Professor at the Royal Military College of Canada whose research spans terrorism, political violence, and criminal use of emerging technologies. He believes this dispute reflects broader divisions within the 3D printed firearms space, which faces ideological tensions and personality clashes. According to the global terrorism expert, this highlights inherent contradictions within a community that “thrives on decentralization and open-source collaboration.”
Matthew Larosiere sues Cody Wilson for copyright infringement
Larosiere’s copyright infringement lawsuit names Wilson as a defendant alongside DEFCAD and Defense Distributed (Wilson’s open-source digital firearms organization). Dioskouri LLC is also targeted. According to the official court document, this entity is run by Wilson and operates PrecursorParts.com, a website that reportedly handles online payments for USB drives containing gun files.
In the lawsuit, Wilson is accused of uploading several copyrighted files, images, and text documents registered with the USCO to DEFCAD without permission. These include the Plastikov V4, BUBAR, SF5, KF5, MPP99, Hitchhiker, and Amigo Grande, 3D gun designs owned by Larosiere.
DEFCAD is accessible through a $60-per-year-subscription. Wilson and Defense Distributed also allegedly sell USB drives containing digital files. Larosiere believes the defendants are re-posting his work solely for financial gain. “It’s certainly just to make money,” he told me. “It’s not fair for somebody to make money from my hard work, especially in this clear and brash way.”
The pro-gun attorney is also concerned that Wilson’s actions are damaging his reputation, causing him personal and professional harm. He claims that DEFCAD falsely implies that the copyrighted works were uploaded with permission and that the uploader allows unrestricted rights to create and distribute derivative works.
Additionally, Larosiere claims that DEFCAD has created fake accounts falsely purporting to be 3D gun designers, including himself (under his online handle Fudd Busters) and John Elik (also known as Ivan The Troll). Elik is a prominent advocate for the infamous FGC-9 3D printed gun and contributed to some of the copyrighted models in this case.
“Any files he [Wilson] gets, he makes a profile for that person and forces the association,” the plaintiff stated. Larosiere asserted that he never agreed to his designs being used in this way. “I did not upload any of these things, but they have made their website look like I have, and they even put my logo on it,” he added. “I don’t want people to think I’m affiliated with this guy.”
Larosiere believes Wilson has created fake profiles to “avail himself of Section 230 protections.” Part of the Communications Decency Act, Section 203 protects online platforms from liability for content published by third-party users. The firearms lawyer told me that Wilson “misunderstands section 230,” because the protection “falls away when they’re not the ones uploading it.”
Wilson responded to these allegations, stating, “Like most things in this case, Larosiere misunderstands what he’s looking at.” The University of Central Arkansas graduate explained that his file-sharing platform includes an “encyclopedic function.” As such, DEFCAD “keeps multiple points of metadata about a file, including its original creator.” Wilson noted that while Elik happened to create his own profile on the site, “it would be accurate to assign his files to his profile even if he didn’t.”
Can 3D printed guns be copyrighted?
Wilson stated that “the only allegations” he is concerned with are whether the USCO “can register the 3D design files of useful objects like firearms or their components.” This is a claim that the defendants vehemently dispute, meaning the lawsuit would fail at the first hurdle. “Out of the gate, it’s tempting to ask ourselves questions like: ‘Are 3D models copyrightable? But that isn’t the right inquiry,’” Wilson told me. Instead, Wilson highlighted the U.S. Copyright Act, which denotes only “works” as copyrightable.
Pointing to the lawsuit, Wilson claims that Larosiere is “under the mistaken impression that 3D models or CAD files are a distinct or separate category of protectable ‘work.’” The Forbes 30 Under 30 alumni added, “If you ask him [Larosiere], he’ll say he’s only registered ‘3D design models.’ But that’s not even how American copyright works. You can only register creative ‘works,’ of which 3D models are merely considered ‘copies.’”
Wilson emphasized that copyright legislation only protects creative works and does not cover functional devices. He highlighted Section 101 of the Copyright Act, which explicitly excludes protection for “designs of useful articles,” explained Wilson. The law defines such articles as “having an intrinsic utilitarian function that is not merely to portray the appearance of the article or to convey information.”
According to the defendant, “In our case, the ‘works’ are not creative 3D sculptures, or 3D visual artworks, as Larosiere suggests.” Instead, he noted, the files in question cover functional firearm parts like assemblies and receivers. “The decisions behind their creation are functional. Each component is meant to assemble into a functioning open bolt .22 firearm.”
Weinberg added that “firearms themselves cannot be protected by copyright” because “Copyright does not protect functional, useful objects.” While patents can be used to protect functional models, none of the disputed files feature any patent protection. “Larosiere should have pursued design patents,” added Wilson. However, “since most of his work is notoriously given away to the public for free, he can’t.”
Weinberg highlighted that the Copyright Office registered Larosiere’s designs as models and not functional objects. He believes this registration has unclear implications for those who want to use them as functional objects. However, Weinberg calls it “bad policy to extend copyright protection to CAD files for purely functional objects like firearms.” This is because it could become a “back door way to expand copyright protection to functional objects.”
Ultimately, Wilson is confident in defeating Larosiere’s suit. “I don’t think Larosiere is experienced enough in IP matters, or litigation, to prevail,” the gun designer declared. “His decision to bring a lawsuit was intended more to influence the current community of designers in the 3D gun space than to create good law.” While a victory for Larosiere in the district court would require an appeal to overturn, Wilson emphasized that he is “ready to go the distance.”
Larosiere defends copyright claims
Despite Wilson’s arguments, Larosiere remains confident that his designs are copyright-protected. The Floridian gun lawyer argues that the Copyright Act safeguards “all works of the visual arts,” including 2D and 3D models and technical drawings. He explained, “A useful article has to be a physical object,” meaning the firearm designs and models are protectable since they exist in the digital realm.
He argues that the defendants’ belief “is a misunderstanding based on the Star Athletica v. Varsity Brands case.” This copyright protection dispute arose when Varsity Brands, a major cheerleading uniform manufacturer, sued Star Athletica for copying its uniform designs. The Supreme Court sided with Varsity, ruling that if a design can exist separately from the functional object, it can be copyrighted.
Wilson and his co-defendants cite this ruling in their response, arguing it validates their claims that 3D printable gun files are not copyrightable. However, according to Larosiere, this presupposes that his registered designs are “useful articles.” The Floridian gun lawyer argues that the Copyright Act safeguards “all works of the visual arts,” including 2D and 3D models and technical drawings. The plaintiff’s official reply to Wilson’s response points to Tecnoglass, LLC v. RC Home Showcase, Inc., a case which found the “statutory definition of ‘useful article’…excludes technical drawings.”
Larosiere stressed that a copyrighted drawing or model—such as those Wilson allegedly stole and republished—should not be mistaken for the physical object it represents. “If models and technical drawings have the same protection as the thing they depict, it would mean that you could not copyright a technical drawing or a model,” he noted. “So why would the Copyright Acts specifically list technical drawings and models in both two and three dimensions?”
The Plaintiff also told me that his lawsuit is not concerned with challenging the ability of individuals to 3D print gun files, even those protected by copyright. Instead, Larosiere is solely focused on preventing Wilson from selling the copyrighted models. “Nowhere do we ever say you cannot make a physical thing,” he explained. “It’s always ‘stop selling my drawing.’”
In their response to the lawsuit, the defendants agreed to remove the allegedly infringing images and text for the duration of the case. They reportedly made this decision because “claims about 3D models are the most important part of both the overall action and this motion.” However, they maintain that “claims about 2D photos and text are completely meritless” and plan to seek a final judgment dismissing them. According to Wilson and his co-defendants, this makes the arguments against these files moot in the current lawsuit.
Larosiere, however, argued that this move amounts to an admission that Wilson “stole the copyrighted photographs and written works,” and claimed that some remain online. “He still has like three of them up. We brought it to their attention, and they didn’t take them down,” Larosiere said. Among the remaining files is allegedly a “word-for-word reproduction” of the Hitchhiker gun design.
Wilson denies these accusations. He told me that Larosiere has “hidden five miniature pieces of text/images in the designs to work as a kind of DRM.” Wilson claimed that these pieces of “ancillary expressive material” serve as “Lockout Codes.” The Defendant argues that these are “hidden” in the files to “help an otherwise invalid copyright claim survive a court’s severability analysis.” However, Wilson avowed, “It’s not going to work here.”
The Zermay Law Group attorney also criticized Wilson’s “Black Flag White Paper,” a critique of Larosiere and copyright law. The document frames the enforcement of intellectual property as antithetical to the libertarian and buccaneering origins of 3D printed firearms. Larosiere, however, calls it “an aggressive misunderstanding of copyright, wherein he admits to removing the copyright notices from my models.”
Division in the 3D printed gun community
Larosiere and Wilson’s legal dispute highlights growing tensions within the 3D printed firearms community. Veilleux-Lepage describes an “interesting paradox” among supporters of 3D printed guns. On one hand, the community is seen as a “broad church,” uniting people with diverse ideologies under the shared goal of advancing privately made firearms. In contrast, geographic and ideological divisions have surfaced, fueling “very public feuds” and personality clashes between key figures.
Veilleux-Lepage notes that many members advocate for an open-source spirit to “refine designs, improve manufacturing techniques, and push the limits of what is possible with 3D-printed firearms.” This level of freedom reflects the core libertarian and anti-establishment ethos which underpins many 3D printed gun designs. In a previous conversation, Veilleux-Lepage noted that, in some circles, “the act of choosing a 3D printed firearm is driven by ideology as opposed to necessity.” Homemade weapons are symbols of defiance against state control, he explained, unlocking unrestricted access to firearms around the world.
However, the community is not homogeneous, leading to “significant underlying conflicts.” A geographical divide exists around the American-centric focus on part-kit completion kits, which combine 3D printed and conventional firearm parts inaccessible outside the US. According to Veilleux-Lepage, designers and makers in other countries argue that this approach “limits the global applicability of many firearm projects.” He also highlighted a “fundamental ideological divide” between those who advocate for fully open-access build guides and STL files and those who aim to monetize their designs.
Although Wilson charges money for gun files, he stressed that free access is “foundational” to the 3D printed gun movement. He called the license for the Liberator an “immanent critique of the use of copyright in open hardware licenses.” Wilson added that there is an open secret about open hardware projects: “Most don’t have enforceable licenses because most are outside the scope of copyright in the first place.”
However, the clash of personalities is arguably an even bigger point of contention in the community, often resulting in public feuds. Veilleux-Lepage identified the “clear animosity” between Cody Wilson of Defense Distributed and members of “The Gatalog,” a forum of like-minded gun designers that includes Larosiere. This animosity is particularly true of Elik, who accused Wilson and DEFCAD on X of “[stealing] as much of other people’s work as they could – deliberately betraying one of the promises they made to the community from the very beginning.”
According to Veilleux-Lepage, an interesting side-effect of these disputes is that it has removed the traditional anonymity of many in the 3D printed gun community. He explained that the researchers now have “greater visibility into a movement that has traditionally been highly secretive and hostile toward journalists and academics.” He added that “litigation within the community is exposing key figures, shedding light on individuals who were previously known only by their pseudonyms.”
One notable example is Peter Celentano (pseudonym “Freeman1337”). In an attempt to protect his identity, Celentano allegedly provided a bogus address to the attorney handling the Everytown for Gun Safety lawsuit, which targeted manufacturers, sellers, and online distributors of firearms. He was later arrested for possessing 59 AR-style receivers which all had a third pin hole, making them legally classified as machine guns.
His arrest and connection to Freeman1337 were first reported by DDLegio, a platform run by Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed. Veilleux-Lepage believes legal battles and law enforcement actions like this are “inadvertently revealing the identities and activities of individuals who had, until now, remained deeply anonymous.”
The future of open-source 3D printing
How will Larosiere and Wilson’s legal feud impact the future of open-source 3D printing? Weinberg believes the ruling could set a significant precedent for how 3D printable files are accessed online. Particularly, if the court rules that 3D gun models are copyrightable, companies throughout the 3D printing ecosystem could move to license more designs.
The open-source advocate views Larosiere’s lawsuit as an “interesting case for anyone who cares about copyright and 3D printing.” He added that the outcome has the potential to “clarify rules around how copyright interacts with 3D models of functional objects generally,” something that could have “a much larger impact.”
Wilson believes the outcome could “affect the boundaries of 3DP and copyright.” Because the case requires “the exploration of the boundaries of copyright and patent law,” he believes the ruling “will be precedential for many more territorial disputes in the wider design and 3D printing worlds.”
On the other hand, Larosiere argued that a ruling in his favor would not impact the copyright sphere because “it’s all very settled law.” He added, “It’s hard to find comparable cases because it’s very rare that people so brazenly violate copyright.” The plaintiff asserted that his victory would not restrict the ability of others to 3D print parts. “Copyright won’t prevent you from doing a 3D print, because that’s the manufacture of a physical thing,” he added. “What’s at issue here is selling the work.”
Subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry newsletter to keep up with the latest 3D printing news.
You can also follow us on LinkedIn, and subscribe to the 3D Printing Industry Youtube channel to access more exclusive content.
Featured image shows the U.S District Court Middle District of Florida Orlando Division HQ. Photo via the U.S District Court Middle District of Florida
