Photopea developer says GitHub won't remove AI-assisted pirated copies

By Splitfeed EditorialLast updated Oct 6, 2026, 23:30 UTC

On October 6, 2026, the developer of Photopea posted directly to Hacker News describing a situation in which users have been directing AI models to extract the client-side JavaScript from Photopea's website, strip out its advertisements, and republish the altered code across dozens of GitHub repositories. The developer states that takedown requests submitted to GitHub have gone unresolved for more than a month, and that users are filing bug reports against these unofficial copies under the mistaken belief that they are legitimate releases of the software.

The case sits at the intersection of several unresolved questions about AI-assisted copyright infringement. Photopea's JavaScript is publicly accessible by design, since it runs in a browser, but accessibility has never automatically implied permission to redistribute modified versions. What makes this situation distinct from older forms of software piracy is the role AI played as a tool for transformation: users apparently did not hand-edit the code themselves but instead prompted a model to perform the modification. Whether that step changes the legal character of the infringement, or GitHub's obligations under takedown law, is genuinely contested ground. The developer's concern is also practical, not only legal, since user confusion about which version is official creates support burdens and potential reputational damage.

Because no reactions from the Pro-AI, Anti-AI, or Middle Ground camps have been published on this story yet, what each would typically argue can only be anticipated. The Pro-AI camp would likely contend that using an AI model to modify publicly visible code is no different in principle from doing so manually, and that platform enforcement rather than AI capability is the real issue here. The Anti-AI camp would be expected to treat this as a concrete example of AI lowering the barrier to intellectual property violations, making infringement faster and easier to scale across dozens of repositories. The Middle Ground camp would probably focus on the platform responsibility angle, arguing that GitHub's slow response is the more pressing problem and that clearer policies around AI-assisted derivative works are overdue.

The most immediate thing to watch is whether GitHub acts on the outstanding takedown requests and, if so, on what legal basis it does so. Any formal statement from GitHub about how it classifies AI-assisted modifications under its existing DMCA or terms-of-service framework would help clarify how platforms intend to handle similar cases going forward.