User:Louis/ArtCraft Adobe clones and Section 1201 reform

| new page on the artcraft clones of adobe apps, adobe's cancellation fee, and section 1201 |

| (No difference) |

Latest revision as of 10:04, 12 October 2026 #

ArtCraft has debuted clones of seven Adobe programs, including Photoshop & Premiere, that developer Brandon Thomas said he created with the AI model Claude Opus 5.5, the technology site Ars Technica reported on October 7, 2026.^[1] A US subscriber who cancels a yearly Adobe plan paid monthly after 14 days owes half of what is left on the contract;^[2] ArtCraft's apps are free,^[3] though PhotoCraft's page on GitHub, a site where programmers publish & share code, calls it "not yet a Photoshop replacement for daily professional work".[4]

PhotoCraft's GitHub page says the app was "implemented from public specs and observed behaviour only";[4]Section 1201 is the law against getting around digital locks on copyrighted works.^[5] If Congress reopens copyright law because of artificial intelligence, repealing or rewriting Section 1201 stops looking radical.

Seven free clones of Adobe apps #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=1)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=1)]

The technology site Ars Technica reported on October 7, 2026 that over the weekend ArtCraft had debuted its pivot to a suite of seven open-source apps recreating the user interface & tools of Adobe's Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere, Lightroom, After Effects, InDesign & Acrobat Pro.^[1] Ars wrote that ArtCraft "got its start last year as a 'controllable AI for artists'" for precise editing of AI-made images & videos after they are generated.^[1] The technology news site Gizmodo, writing the same day, described PhotoCraft as "released online last week".[6]

ArtCraft's apps page now lists "Twelve apps", among them PhotoCraft, VectorCraft, FilmCraft, LightCraft, PdfCraft, EffectCraft & DesignCraft, and calls them "Native, open-source apps from the ArtCraft team, built in Rust and free to use".^[3] Rust is a programming language.^[6] Open source here means, in the words of ArtCraft's apps page, that "Every line is on GitHub under permissive licenses. Read it, fork it, build on it."^[3] The README of each of these seven apps, the description file shown on its GitHub page, says the app "is dual-licensed under MIT or Apache-2.0".[4][7][8][9][10][11][12]

An earlier Wayback Machine capture of ArtCraft's site lists "PrintCraft" where the current site lists PdfCraft,[13]^[3] and Gizmodo's list of the apps includes "Printcraft".^[6] PdfCraft's GitHub page still links to "getartcraft.com/apps/printcraft".[7]

Ars reported that software developer Brandon Thomas, announcing the apps on Reddit "earlier this week", said he used Anthropic's AI model Claude Opus 5.5 to create "clean-room replacements" for Adobe's closed source software in Rust, with WebAssembly versions for use in a browser.^[1] PhotoCraft's README describes the app as "an open-source, clean-room reimplementation of Adobe Photoshop, rebuilt in pure Rust", and describes the method as "implemented from public specs and observed behaviour only. No proprietary code, shaders or assets."^[4] Gizmodo described Thomas as "Atlanta-based" & quoted his Reddit post describing himself as a "15-year industry veteran".[6]

Ars's story opened by saying Thomas was "using AI-powered reverse engineering to mimic the look, feel, and functionality of Adobe's well-known software".^[1] Ars defines reverse engineering as "replicating the functionality of a piece of software without directly copying the code itself".^[1] The science and technology news site Futurism, which identified Michael Caffrey as an ArtCraft co-founder, wrote that he told it the project "came about after the team reverse-engineered the top seven Adobe tools using Claude 5.5".^[14] HotHardware, another technology site, wrote that Thomas used AI "to reverse-engineer Adobe's suite".[15]

One change saved to PhotoCraft's code, a commit made by the GitHub account echelon with the message "one-shot", changed 241 files & added 42,241 lines.^[16] The FilmCraft & DesignCraft roadmaps, both last reviewed October 10, 2026, estimate the work left before beta in "Opus 5.5 agent-hours": "~400–700" for FilmCraft^[17] and "420–750" for DesignCraft, which its roadmap equates to "~120–200 wall-clock hours with 4–5 agents".[18]

Alpha status and readiness estimates

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=2)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=2)]

PhotoCraft's README says the app "is in early alpha", describing that stage as one where "much of Photoshop's feature surface exists in some form" but the app is "not yet a Photoshop replacement for daily professional work"; it names its biggest gaps as "AI/generative features, 15 missing tools, depth in typography and pro workflows, and plug-in compatibility".^[4] ArtCraft's apps page labels PhotoCraft & PdfCraft "Early alpha" and the other five of these seven "In development".^[3] Gizmodo reported that Thomas said on the Hacker News forum the apps are in an early alpha state and "not anywhere close to ready".^[6] Ars's subheading called them "nowhere near finished".[1]

PSD files are layered Photoshop documents, which PhotoCraft's README says the app can open, edit & save; it reports that opening & re-saving a document renders the same for "307 of the 309 files" in the psd-tools test set.^[4] PhotoCraft's roadmap, last reviewed October 11, 2026, gives its stage as "Stage: alpha", with beta next, and describes the step to beta as "ready for real work ~45% → ~75%, with reliable PSD", about 1,100–1,800 hours of work away in what it calls "Opus 5.5 agent wall-clock hours for one agent working sequentially".^[19] The roadmap says "PSDs we write are not yet reliably accepted by Photoshop".^[19] PhotoCraft's parity document lists, under "Earlier assessments (kept for the record)", an assessment dated October 5, 2026, which said "real Photoshop parity is still well below 50%" and that on first public use, users found "broken basics", among them "214 shortcut failures" and "an immovable crop frame".[20]

| Each app's status and readiness figures, from its own repository | | | |

|---|---|---|---|
| App | Adobe program it reimplements | Label on ArtCraft's apps page <sup>[\[3\]](#cite_note-artcraft-apps-3)</sup> | Project's own figures | 
|---|---|---|---|

| PhotoCraft | Photoshop ^[4] | Early alpha | Alpha as of October 10, 2026; "~45%" (range 40–50%) "Ready for real work", the document's answer to "could a professional replace Photoshop with it?" ^[20] | | VectorCraft | Illustrator ^[8] | In development | Alpha as of October 10, 2026, with "About 88%" of Illustrator 2026's menu items, tools, effects & formats existing; the scores are "self-assessed from our code against Illustrator's public documentation"; it estimates ~65% "ready for real work" for a mainstream illustrator and ~62% against all of Illustrator ^[8] | | FilmCraft | Premiere Pro ^[9] | In development | Alpha; re-measured October 10, 2026: "Ready for real work: ~56%", described as "Our honest estimate of how close FilmCraft is to replacing Premiere on real projects." ^[9] | | LightCraft | Lightroom ^[10] | In development | Alpha as of October 10, 2026; "~61%" (56–66%) "Ready for real work" for the whole product ^[21]^[10] | | PdfCraft | Acrobat ^[7] | Early alpha | Alpha as of October 2026; of Acrobat Pro's offline features, 57% of all tracked features & 94% of the must-haves exist "in some form"; for everyday work, "about 55% of the way to replacing Acrobat", about 49% against all of Acrobat Pro, and about 66% for someone who only needs the essentials ^[7] | | EffectCraft | After Effects ^[11] | In development | Alpha as of October 10, 2026; feature breadth "≈ 91%" and "Ready for real work" "≈ 45%" (40–50%) ^[22] |

| DesignCraft | InDesign ^[12] | In development | Pre-alpha as of October 10, 2026 ^[18] | ArtCraft's site says "Every Crafting App is written from scratch in Rust and held to the same rules".^[3] PdfCraft's README says: "Still borrowed: pages are drawn by the hayro crate while our own renderer is built."^[7] Its NOTICE file, which says the product "bundles third-party material under its own licenses", lists hayro for rendering under the Apache-2.0 or MIT license.[23]

Gizmodo's Mike Pearl, testing PhotoCraft himself, wrote that "the Free Transform function was an unpredictable mixed bag".^[6] Futurism ran its story under a headline beginning "Adobe in Trouble After Someone Reverse Engineered Adobe Creative Suite"; the article said "a professional user is probably stuck with Adobe for the time being".[14]

Formats the apps read and write

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=3)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=3)]

PhotoCraft's README says its support for PSD files is "written from Adobe's public specification" & tested against "a corpus of real-world files".^[4] Large documents in the PSB format, along with 16- and 32-bit files, "open natively", according to the same README.^[4] LightCraft, the Lightroom reimplementation, says in its README that "JPEG, PNG, TIFF, WebP, PSD composites and JPEG XL open today".[10]

PdfCraft's README describes how the app treats a PDF whose author restricted it: such documents "show a clear notice, and PdfCraft honours their permissions".^[7] The README continues, "Enter the owner password and the restrictions lift."^[7] Edits to encrypted documents "are saved encrypted, under the same keys".[7]

VectorCraft lists "PDF-compatible .ai" import and export among its formats.^[8] Its README also lists, under what is missing, "reliable exchange of Illustrator's own .ai files", noting that "Illustrator's editing data isn't written".[8]

FilmCraft's README, under "Premiere projects", says ".prproj files can't be opened yet", & it lists "No plugins" among its limits.^[9] The README states that FilmCraft "contains no Adobe code".^[9] EffectCraft's README, under the line "After Effects projects can't be opened", says that "EffectCraft can't open .aep / .aepx files, and After Effects plug-ins don't run."^[11] PhotoCraft describes itself as "an independent, open-source project" that "is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by Adobe Inc.", adding that "these names are used only to describe the workflows it is compatible with".[4]

Parity promises and funding

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=4)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=4)]

Ars described Thomas as making the "grandiose promise" that the apps' "super early alpha" state would soon lead to something "just as functional as anything Adobe has ever put out".^[1] Thomas stated on Reddit, as quoted by Ars, "We're going to reach 100% [feature] parity within a month".^[1] Days later, on Hacker News, he said "99% parity will take a while" and that he was sure it would be "measured in months and not years".^[1] HotHardware's account has Thomas "promising to match 100% of Adobe's core features within a month".[15]

After "coding exclusively with AI tools since February", Thomas said, according to Ars, he foresees a near future when everyday developers can re-create open-source versions of popular paid software to "take back the internet and own tech forever".^[1] He wrote that "you can just create 1:1 functional equivalents, clean room" that are "highly performant and cross-platform", adding: "Nothing is stopping you".^[1] Ars reported that in an earlier comment Thomas "gloated" that "Software is over".[1]

Ars wrote that development of the free apps "will be funded", according to Thomas, by selling "token-based access to the pre-existing Artcraft visual AI model", which is offered inside the apps as an image-generation option alongside third-party models.^[1] He wrote: "We have a team building popular software for filmmakers, so supporting this is fully funded."^[1] LightCraft's README lists "No account, no cloud, no telemetry, no subscription",^[10] & DesignCraft's lists "No subscription, no licence server, no telemetry".[12]

Adobe's early termination fee and 2024 terms #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=5)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=5)]

Adobe's help page on subscription terms applies to "Adobe subscribers based in the US" & sets out what it costs to leave an "Annual plan, paid monthly".^[2] Adobe says a yearly subscription "comes with a significant discount", so "a cancellation fee applies if you cancel before the year ends."^[2] Its cancellation examples for the Creative Cloud Pro plan are calculated on "the standard monthly subscription fee of US$69.99" for North America, & the page adds: "Your fee and cancellation charges might be different."^[2] The page states the fee this way:

After 14 days, a cancellation fee (early termination fee) of 50% of the remaining balance of the contract applies. For example, if you cancel in the ninth month, you pay 50% of the fee for the three remaining months.

Ars Technica reported that Thomas wrote on Hacker News that he was inspired to create his own open source Adobe alternatives after being "bit by the dark pattern ‘cancellation fee’ one too many times".^[1] Speaking to Futurism, ArtCraft co-founder Michael Caffrey highlighted Adobe's "scummy practices" like cancellation fees, which Futurism wrote require users to functionally "rent software" from the company.^[14] In a June 18, 2024 video on the federal lawsuit over the fee, consumer advocate Louis Rossmann said he edits with software that keeps working after he buys it once, & that he runs it on Linux.[24]

Federal lawsuit over the cancellation fee

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=6)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=6)]

The government's case against Adobe, United States v. Adobe, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-03630 (N.D. Cal.), was filed on June 17, 2024.^[25] The Justice Department's release that day said the lawsuit "alleges that the defendants imposed a hidden 'Early Termination Fee' on millions of online subscribers" & alleges that Adobe "forced subscribers to navigate a complex and challenging cancellation process" that was "designed to deter them from cancelling".^[26] The two executives named with Adobe were David Wadhwani, whom the department called "Adobe’s President of Digital Media Business", & Maninder Sawhney, "Adobe’s Vice President of Digital Go to Market & Sales".[26]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) voted 3-0 to refer the civil penalty complaint to the Justice Department for filing.^[27] According to the complaint as the FTC summarized it, Adobe "buries the early termination fee (ETF) and its amount", which is "50 percent of the remaining monthly payments when a consumer cancels in their first year".^[27] Samuel Levine, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said that "Adobe trapped customers into year-long subscriptions through hidden early termination fees and numerous cancellation hurdles".[27]

On May 2, 2025, Judge Noël Wise denied the defendants' motion to dismiss "as to all counts".^[28] The court found that Adobe "clearly and conspicuously disclosed" that its Annual Paid Monthly (APM) plan "is an annual or yearly plan", but it held that the government did state a claim that Adobe "did not clearly and conspicuously disclose the ETF or its calculation method".^[28] By the court's count, Adobe's online cancellation process "requires eight clicks, including selecting a box for feedback, and eight screens", many of which, it wrote, entice the customer not to cancel.[28]

On March 13, 2026, the Justice Department announced a proposed stipulated order, an order the government & the defendants agreed to ask the court to enter,^[29] that, "if entered by the court", would resolve the case & would require Adobe "to pay $75 million in civil penalties and offer customers $75 million in free services".^[30] Adobe said in a statement the same day that "we disagree with the government’s claims and deny any wrongdoing", that it had agreed to provide "$75 million worth of services for free to customers that qualify", & that it had agreed to "a $75 million payment to the Department of Justice".^[31] The statement also said Adobe is "transparent with the terms and conditions of our subscription agreements".[31]

Wise signed the order & the final judgment on April 10, 2026, & the docket records the civil case as terminated pursuant to both.[25][29]^[32] The final judgment entered the same day directed the clerk to close the file.^[32] The order entered a judgment of $75,000,000 against Adobe, Inc. as a civil penalty, & Adobe agreed to offer consumers $75,000,000 in free services, which the parties agreed "are not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, if any".^[29] The defendants "neither admit nor deny any of the allegations in the Complaint", except as specifically stated in their answer & in the order.[29]

Adobe must disclose "how the early cancellation fee is calculated (for applicable products)", which the order says must be "Clearly and Conspicuously disclosed within the main body of any enrollment flow".^[29] Where a consumer was able to sign up for a subscription by navigating an online flow & clicking a subscription button, the order says the consumer "must generally be able to cancel" the same way, by navigating an online flow & clicking a cancellation button.^[29] The order is set to remain in effect for 10 years after its entry.[29]

Adobe's settlement FAQ says a customer is eligible if they subscribed to a Creative Cloud app "at any time between January 2019 and July 2025" & paid an early termination fee that, combined with their monthly fees, "exceeded the cost of a month-to-month plan for the same period".^[33] The settlement "is available only to U.S. customers".^[33] Adobe says it emailed eligible customers to offer "two months of free access to select Adobe apps", & eligible former customers can redeem them "at any time through December 31, 2027".[33]

June 2024 terms of use change

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=7)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=7)]

On June 6, 2024, Adobe posted "A clarification on Adobe Terms of Use", which said the focus of its terms of use update was "to be clearer about the improvements to our moderation processes".^[34] The post said Adobe requires "a limited license to access content" solely to operate or improve its services & software, enforce its terms & comply with law, & that "Adobe does not train Firefly Gen AI models on customer content."^[34] In a follow-up post on Adobe's blog, Adobe's Scott Belsky & Dana Rao wrote that Adobe would speak to customers "with a plan to roll out updated changes by June 18, 2024", & that "we should have modernized our Terms of Use sooner."^[35] They also wrote: "Adobe does not scan content stored locally on your computer in any way."[35]

The revised General Terms of Use read: "Published June 18, 2024. Effective as of June 18, 2024."^[36] They state that they "replace and supersede all prior versions".^[36] In a June 6, 2024 video, Rossmann argued that software which must connect to Adobe's cloud leaves users subject to terms Adobe can change at any time, & he urged viewers to move to alternatives while conceding they are not always as good.[37]

Clean-room rules and Adobe's terms of use #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=8)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=8)]

Contributor rules on Adobe software

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=9)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=9)]

PhotoCraft's guidance for contributors sits in a file named AGENTS.md, headed a "guide for AI agents and contributors".^[38] It says the team studied Photoshop and other proprietary editors for "behaviour and look only" & tells contributors, "Never copy their code, shaders, profiles or assets."[38]

PdfCraft's rules say "Never read, disassemble or copy anything inside the Acrobat bundle", allowing "Only names and listings".^[39] VectorCraft's parallel rule calls the same thing "an Adobe install".^[40] FilmCraft's rules say the same of "Adobe application bundles", permitting "file names and listings only".^[41] LightCraft's README tells contributors to "Never read Adobe binaries".^[10] EffectCraft's README says its team works "from After Effects' public documentation and how it behaves" & never "from Adobe's files, icons, presets or code".[11]

DesignCraft's "instructions for agents" let agents watch InDesign from the outside, which the file calls observing it "black-box".^[42] InDesign "is installed on the dev machine", & agents may "run it, use its UI with synthetic documents, take screenshots", with the screenshots stored only in a project folder and "never committed", but must never read, disassemble or copy "anything inside the InDesign bundle" beyond names & listings.^[42] LightCraft's README likewise tells contributors to "work from public specs and black-box observation".^[10] PdfCraft's README calls the app "a clean-room implementation" whose behavior "comes from the ISO 32000 specification and black-box observation, never from anyone else's code".^[7] VectorCraft's rules list ISO 32000 among "the public specifications" as "PDF / ISO 32000".[40]

VectorCraft's "instructions for agents" make it an "absolute rule, from the project owner" that agents "never use Adobe software": they must "Never launch, run, script, automate ... screenshot or measure Illustrator or any other Adobe application".^[40] The file gives as its reason that Adobe's terms "forbid reverse engineering, including observing a program's inputs and outputs to recreate it".[40]

Adobe's ban on reverse engineering

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=10)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=10)]

Adobe's General Terms of Use call themselves "a legal agreement between you and Adobe", and the current version was published & took effect on October 3, 2025.^[43] Its section 17, headed "No Modifications, Reverse Engineering, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)", provides:

Except as expressly permitted in the Terms, you must not (and must not allow third parties to): (A) modify, port, adapt, or translate any portion of the Services or Software; (B) reverse engineer (including but not limited to monitoring or tracking the inputs and outputs flowing through a system or an application in order to recreate that system), decompile, disassemble, or otherwise attempt to discover, within any Service or Software, the source code, data representations or underlying algorithms, processes, methods, and any other portion of such Service or Software;

The parenthetical in clause (B) names the same activity & purpose that VectorCraft's rules give as their reason for keeping agents off Adobe software.[43]^[40] The version published on March 16, 2020 already barred reverse engineering, including but not limited to "monitoring or tracking the inputs and outputs flowing through a system or an application", with the same purpose clause.[44]

In that 2020 version, section 17 was headed "No Modifications, Reverse Engineering".^[44] The version published on August 1, 2022 headed section 17 "No Modifications, Reverse Engineering, Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning (AI/ML)" & barred using Adobe's services or software, or "any content, data, output, or other information received or derived from" them, to "directly or indirectly create, train, test, or otherwise improve" any machine learning algorithm or artificial intelligence system "that mimics or performs any function substantially similar" to "any function contained within the Services or Software".^[45] Clause (C) of the current terms, which reads the same in the version published on June 18, 2024, drops that limit:[36]

(C) use the Services or Software, or any content, data, output, or other information received or derived from the Services or Software, to directly or indirectly create, train, test, or otherwise improve any machine learning algorithms or artificial intelligence system, including but not limited to any architectures, models, or weights.

The same section then addresses decompiling, which clause (B) lists among the ways to "attempt to discover" a program's "source code", when it is done to make software work with other programs:

If the laws of your jurisdiction give you the right to decompile the Services or Software to obtain information necessary to render the licensed portions of the Services or Software interoperable with other software, you must first request such information from us. We may, in our discretion, either provide such information to you or impose reasonable conditions, including a reasonable fee, on your decompilation of the Services or Software to ensure that our and our licensors’ and suppliers’ proprietary rights in the Services and Software are protected. Section 6 says that users "must not", among other things, build a database or dataset from Adobe Content Files, which section 3.6 defines as "Adobe assets provided as part of the Services and Software", "for the purpose of reverse engineering" (6.5), access or attempt to access the services "by any means other than the interface we provide or authorize" (6.6), or "circumvent any access or use restrictions put into place to prevent certain uses" of the services and software (6.7).^[43] Section 1.2 states that Adobe's services and software "are licensed, not sold, to you", & that they "also may be subject to" separate "Product Specific Terms".^[43] Adobe's separate Software Product Specific Terms, last updated June 18, 2024, add that "Unless permitted in the Terms", users must not "circumvent technological measures intended to control access to the Software" or "develop, distribute, or use with the Software, products that circumvent the technological measures".[46]

Adobe's plain-language summary of section 17 says it does not "allow you to recreate or attempt to recreate our products", and the terms page states, "Only the terms themselves are legally binding, not these summaries."^[43] The photography news site PetaPixel wrote on October 7, 2026 that it had asked Adobe for comment and would update its story "in the event the company has anything to say about ArtCraft".^[47] The technology publication Computing reported on October 8, 2026 that Adobe "has yet to make a statement on the subject".[48]

US copyright law on copying software #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=11)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=11)]

Ideas, methods and interfaces

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=12)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=12)]

Section 102(b) of the federal copyright statute, 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), reads:

In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

House Report No. 94–1476, reproduced in the notes to the section, says Section 102(b) is intended, "among other things", to make clear that "the expression adopted by the programmer is the copyrightable element in a computer program" & that the program's "actual processes or methods" are "not within the scope of the copyright law".[49]

In Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), a dispute over a book explaining a system of bookkeeping, the Supreme Court held that the description of an art in a book, though "entitled to the benefit of copyright", "lays no foundation for an exclusive claim to the art itself".^[50] Justice Bradley wrote: "The object of the one is explanation; the object of the other is use."^[50] The opinion said copyright may secure the explanation, while the use "can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by letters patent", that is, by a patent.[50]

In Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995), Borland had copied the menu command hierarchy of Lotus 1-2-3, a spreadsheet program, into its Quattro & Quattro Pro spreadsheet programs.^[51] The First Circuit held that "the Lotus menu command hierarchy is an uncopyrightable 'method of operation'", because the hierarchy "serves as the method by which the program is operated and controlled".^[51] The court read "method of operation" in § 102(b) as "the means by which a person operates something", giving as examples "a car, a food processor, or a computer".^[52] On January 16, 1996, in Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996), the Supreme Court affirmed the First Circuit's judgment "by an equally divided Court"; Justice Stevens "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case".[53]

In Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., decided by the Second Circuit in 1992, the court took up the "non-literal" aspects of a computer program, "those aspects that are not reduced to written code".^[54] It said district courts "would be well-advised to undertake a three-step procedure" to decide "whether the non-literal elements of two or more computer programs are substantially similar": a court would break the allegedly infringed program into "its constituent structural parts", "sift out all non-protectable material" such as incorporated ideas, expression necessarily incidental to those ideas & elements taken from the public domain, then compare what remains with the structure of the allegedly infringing program.[54]

Andrew W. Gregg & Kandis M. Koustenis of the law firm Bean, Kinney & Korman wrote in an April 13, 2026 article on AI clean rooms:

The canonical case, Computer Associates v. Altai (2d Cir. 1992), upheld a rewrite where the defendant excluded the employee who had copied code, locked away the original, and used programmers who had never worked on the tainted version.

In Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., No. 18-956, decided April 5, 2021, the dispute was Google's use of part of the Sun Java API, an Application Programming Interface; the Court's opinion said that through an API "a programmer can draw upon a vast library of prewritten code".^[56] The Court said it would "assume, but purely for argument's sake," that the entire Sun Java API could be copyrighted, & asked instead whether Google's use was a "fair use", a defense under the Copyright Act's fair use provision.^[56] The majority opinion concluded:

We reach the conclusion that in this case, where Google reimplemented a user interface, taking only what was needed to allow users to put their accrued talents to work in a new and transformative program, Google’s copying of the Sun Java API was a fair use of that material as a matter of law.

Ars Technica wrote that reverse engineering "has generally been found legally acceptable", & that the ArtCraft apps "could still face legal trouble" if their "trade dress" too closely mimics "Adobe's familiar appearance and interface".[1]

Decompiling and contract waivers

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=13)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=13)]

Copying a program's code in order to study it has been held a fair use in two Ninth Circuit cases.[57]^[58] In Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992), decided October 20, 1992, Accolade, a game developer that "is not and never has been a licensee of Sega", set out to make its games compatible with Sega's Genesis console.^[57] Accolade turned the machine-readable object code in Sega's game cartridges into human-readable source code by a process called "disassembly".[57]

The Ninth Circuit held that disassembly is a fair use "as a matter of law" where it is "the only way to gain access to the ideas and functional elements" in a copyrighted program & "where there is a legitimate reason for seeking such access".^[57] If disassembly of copyrighted object code were "per se an unfair use", the court reasoned, the copyright owner would gain "a de facto monopoly over the functional aspects of his work", "aspects that were expressly denied copyright protection by Congress".^[57] It found that Accolade's work had increased the number of independently designed games offered for the Genesis, "precisely this growth in creative expression" that the Copyright Act was intended to promote.^[57] The court added that its conclusion did not "insulate Accolade" from an infringement claim over "its finished products".[57]

In Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000), filed February 10, 2000, Connectix's Virtual Game Station was software meant "to emulate on a regular computer the functioning of the Sony PlayStation console", so that computer owners could play PlayStation games on their computers.^[58] The court wrote that the program "does not contain any of Sony's copyrighted material".^[58] Sony owned the copyright on the PlayStation's "basic input-output system or BIOS", the program that operates the console.^[58] The court held that Connectix's reverse engineering of the Sony BIOS, extracted from a PlayStation console that Connectix engineers had purchased, "is protected as a fair use".[58]

Two appeals courts have held that a software license can take away the ability to reverse engineer.[59]^[60] In Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003), decided January 29, 2003, Bowers sold his Designer's Toolkit software "with a shrink-wrap license", a contract the court said "broadly prohibits any 'reverse engineering'" of the software it covered.^[59] The court quoted the Copyright Act's preemption provision, 17 U.S.C. § 301(a), under which rights "equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright" are "governed exclusively" by federal copyright law.^[59] Applying "First Circuit law", the Federal Circuit held that the Copyright Act "does not preempt or narrow the scope of" the contract claim brought by Bowers, & that the First Circuit would find parties "free to contractually forego the limited ability to reverse engineer a software product".[59]

Judge Dyk dissented in part.^[59] He agreed that a state can permit parties to contract away a fair use defense "if the contract is freely negotiated", but wrote that the majority's approach "permits state law to eviscerate an important federal copyright policy".^[59] Of shrinkwrap licenses, he wrote that, as with "any other contract of adhesion", the only choice offered to the purchaser is "to avoid making the purchase in the first place".[59]

In Davidson & Associates v. Jung, No. 04-3654 (8th Cir. September 1, 2005), a suit by Blizzard Entertainment, the outside packaging of all Blizzard games except Diablo stated that use of the game was subject to the "EULA", the end user license agreement, & that use of Battle.net, which the court described as "a free service that allows owners of Blizzard games to play each other", was subject to the "TOU", the Battle.net Terms of Use.^[60] The Eighth Circuit held:

Appellants contractually accepted restrictions on their ability to reverse engineer by their agreement to the terms of the TOU and EULA.

Section 1201 anti-circumvention rule #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=14)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=14)]

Section 1201 of Title 17 is part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).^[61] Its first rule, in subsection (a)(1)(A), bars anyone from circumventing "a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title", that is, getting around a digital lock on a copyrighted work.^[5] Under the statute, decrypting "an encrypted work" without the copyright owner's authority is one way to circumvent such a measure.^[5] A second rule, in subsection (a)(2), covers tools: no person may "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in" any technology, product, service or device that "is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing" such a measure, that has "only limited commercially significant purpose or use" other than circumvention, or that is marketed "by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge" for use in circumventing such a measure.[5]

WIPO treaty and the 1998 statute

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=15)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=15)]

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty was adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996,^[62] & entered into force in 2002.^[63] Its Article 11, headed "Obligations concerning Technological Measures", says:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

The bill that became Public Law 105-304 was signed by the President on October 28, 1998.^[64] The law's long title says it amends title 17 of the United States Code to implement the WIPO Copyright Treaty and the Performances and Phonograms Treaty.^[65] The United States Copyright Office's June 2017 report on Section 1201 says the implementing bills introduced in the House & Senate "became the basis for title I of the DMCA", the part that holds the provisions eventually codified as Section 1201, & that the Senate ratified the WIPO treaties "shortly before passage of the DMCA".^[66] Adobe's own 2001 question-and-answer page on copyright said that Congress's enactment of the DMCA "was required by two 1996 international copyright treaties".[67]

Triennial exemption rulemaking

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=16)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=16)]

During "each succeeding 3-year period", the Librarian of Congress, on the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, decides in a rulemaking whether users of a copyrighted work "are, or are likely to be" adversely affected by the ban in the succeeding 3-year period in their ability to make noninfringing uses of a particular class of works.^[5] For each class where the Librarian makes that finding, the ban does not apply to those users "for the ensuing 3-year period".[5]

The ninth triennial proceeding ended with a final rule, effective October 28, 2024, in which the Librarian of Congress determined that the ban does not apply "for the next three years" to people who engage in "certain noninfringing uses" of specified classes of works.^[68] Considering "the record before her and applicable law", the Register did not recommend granting "Class 6(b)’s removal of the premises limitation from the video game exemption", a request to drop the requirement that a preserved video game not be "distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of an eligible institution".[69]

The Copyright Office opened the tenth triennial proceeding on June 9, 2026, with a Notice of Inquiry and Request for Petitions.[61]^[70] Petitions for new exemptions & for renewal of current ones "were due August 24, 2026", & written comments on the renewal petitions "were due September 28, 2026".^[61] The Office's page for the cycle says public submissions "are forthcoming" there & are available on regulations.gov.[61]

After reviewing the petitions & the renewal comments, the Office "will issue an NPRM", a notice of proposed rulemaking, "addressing all of the potential exemptions to be considered in the rulemaking".^[70] It "generally expects to follow a similar timeframe" for the NPRM & comments as in the ninth rulemaking.^[70] The Office's page says renewed exemptions "remain in force for an additional three-year period", October 2027 to October 2030.[61]

Interoperability exemption

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=17)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=17)]

Subsection (f), headed "Reverse Engineering", lets a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program circumvent a lock on a particular portion of that program "for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing" the elements "necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs".^[5] The statute defines interoperability as "the ability of computer programs to exchange information", and of such programs "mutually to use the information which has been exchanged".^[5] The person may do so only for elements that have not previously been readily available to that person, & only to the extent the acts do not constitute infringement.[5]

Subsection (b) applies the same ban on making or trafficking in tools to tools for circumventing a measure that "effectively protects a right of a copyright owner".^[5] Despite the tool bans in subsections (a)(2) and (b), "a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent" for that analysis or "for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs", "if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability" & to the extent doing so does not constitute infringement.^[5] The information & tools may be made available to others "solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability" of "an independently created computer program with other programs", to the extent doing so does not constitute infringement "or violate applicable law other than this section".[5]

According to the Copyright Office's 2017 report, the House and Senate Judiciary Committee reports "both suggest" that the overall goal of Section 1201(f) was "to preserve the ability to engage in the activities found to be noninfringing" by the Ninth Circuit in the Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc. decision.^[66] In that case, according to the report, Accolade, "a manufacturer of games compatible with Sega’s Genesis console", copied a small segment of initialization code from Sega cartridges into its own, & by doing so "enabled its games to interoperate with the Genesis console".[66]

The Office had previously noted that the exemption is "somewhat ambiguous" on whether it lets end users circumvent to make computer programs interoperable or is limited to circumvention "done solely for certain analytical purposes".^[66] In 2017 it concluded that "the stronger interpretation" is that Section 1201(f) does permit circumvention to enable interoperability "in certain circumstances, and subject to various statutory safeguards", & that it did not believe amending the subsection was "currently necessary" for consumers to engage in legitimate activity of that type.^[66] It also read subsection (f)(3) to let recipients of interoperability tools, "including individual consumers", use them for that purpose, "provided the other statutory requirements are satisfied", while noting that "the statute is not free from ambiguity".^[66] The report recorded "many expressing concern" that Section 1201(f) is "too restrictive and overly limited" to circumvention for identification and analysis, & it stated: "The few cases in which courts have addressed section 1201(f) have not resolved this ambiguity."[66]

As quoted by the Copyright Office, a joint filing by the Association of American Publishers, the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America argued that by limiting the exemption to identification and analysis, Congress conveyed that circumventing to copy & adapt software into a new product, or to get access beyond what was purchased or licensed, "is not necessarily fair use".^[66] The Software and Information Industry Association (SIIA), also as quoted by the Office, wrote: "[T]he exemption in 1201(f), combined with the rulemaking function, sufficiently handles any needs of interoperability."^[66] The report says the Copyright Office "does not recommend broad changes to the statute’s overall scope".[66]

In Davidson & Associates v. Jung, where the court found that the appellants' "bnetd.org emulator enabled users of Blizzard games to access Battle.net mode features" without a valid or unique CD key, the Eighth Circuit held in September 2005 that the appellants' circumvention "constitutes infringement" & that they had not shown "a genuine issue of material fact" on whether the interoperability exception applied.[60]

In The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004), a dispute over Skylink's Model 39 universal transmitter & Chamberlain's Security + line of garage door openers, the Federal Circuit held that Section 1201 prohibits "only forms of access that bear a reasonable relationship" to the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.^[71] The court wrote that Chamberlain's reading would let any manufacturer add "a single copyrighted sentence or software fragment" to a product, wrap it in a trivial "encryption" scheme, & so gain the right to "restrict consumers’ rights to use its products in conjunction with competing products".[71]

The Ninth Circuit declined to adopt what it called an "infringement nexus requirement" in MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010), a case over Glider, a program that automatically plays the early levels of Blizzard's World of Warcraft for players.^[72] In the court's words, the Federal Circuit's approach requires a Section 1201(a) plaintiff "to demonstrate that the circumventing technology infringes or facilitates infringement of the plaintiffs copyright".^[72] The court wrote that if it followed Chamberlain on that point, "we would have to disregard the plain language of the statute".[72]

Adobe and the ElcomSoft indictment

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=18)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=18)]

Adobe's FAQ on the case, which calls ElcomSoft "a Russian software maker", says Adobe became aware of "the ElcomSoft violation" in June, & that it sent letters to ElcomSoft, its Internet service provider in the United States & its credit card clearinghouse in the United States asking them to stop "the for-profit sale of these digital burglary tools".^[73] When ElcomSoft did not respond or stop, "Adobe forwarded the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office".^[73] Asked whether it had instigated the U.S. government's investigation of ElcomSoft, Adobe answered "Yes", saying it had alerted the government to ElcomSoft's "possible illegal distribution" of its Advanced eBook Processor, a program the FAQ says "circumvents the copyright protections in Adobe's Acrobat eBook Reader".[73]

Dmitry Sklyarov, who worked for Elcomsoft "as a computer programmer and cryptanalyst", later admitted that he attended the DEF CON Nine conference in Las Vegas on July 15, 2001, "as part of my employment with Elcomsoft".^[74] The FBI arrested him at the conference on July 16, 2001,^[75] on a criminal complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California.^[76] The complaint charged "a single count of trafficking in a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures" under Section 1201(b)(1)(A), which carried a maximum statutory penalty of five years imprisonment & a fine of $500,000 for each count.^[77] The U.S. Attorney's Office called the case "one of the first prosecutions in the United States under this statute".[77]

Adobe's FAQ says Adobe "did not order the arrest", which was "the decision of the U.S. government" based on the information gathered in its investigation, & that the criminal complaint "is the U.S. government's, not Adobe's".^[73] On July 23, 2001, Adobe & the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a digital-rights nonprofit, "jointly recommended the release" of Sklyarov "from federal custody", & Adobe withdrew "its support for the criminal complaint against Dmitry Sklyarov".^[76] Colleen Pouliot, Adobe's Senior Vice President and General Counsel, said in the release, "We strongly support the DMCA and the enforcement of copyright protection of digital content," & continued:

However, the prosecution of this individual in this particular case is not conducive to the best interests of any of the parties involved or the industry. ElcomSoft's Advanced eBook Processor software is no longer available in the United States, and from that perspective the DMCA worked. Adobe will continue to protect its copyright interests and those of its customers.

The FAQ said Adobe was "in complete agreement with the government's decision to prosecute the company, ElcomSoft".^[73] Asked whether the commercial sale of a program like ElcomSoft's should be illegal, Adobe's copyright question-and-answer page compared such programs to locksmith tools and satellite TV descramblers & said that through the DMCA "Congress has merely banned the digital analogs of these kinds of burglary tools".[67]

Sklyarov made his initial appearance in federal court in San Jose on August 6, 2001, & was released on bail under an agreement between the United States & the defendant.^[78] On August 28, 2001, a federal grand jury in San Jose indicted Sklyarov & Elcom Ltd., which the release says is "also known as Elcomsoft Co. Ltd.", both of Moscow, Russia, on five counts of copyright violations.^[78] The U.S. Attorney's release said, "This is the first indictment under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act", & noted that an indictment "simply contains allegations".[78]

The counts were one of conspiracy to traffic in technology primarily designed to circumvent, and marketed for use in circumventing, technology that protects a right of a copyright owner, under Section 371 of Title 18; two of trafficking in technology primarily designed to circumvent technology that protects a right of a copyright owner, under Section 1201(b)(1)(A); and two of trafficking in technology marketed for use in circumventing such technology, under Section 1201(b)(1)(C).^[78] According to the indictment, people buying the program "were directed to pay approximately $99 to an online payment service RegNow".^[78] The book-trade magazine Publishers Weekly later reported that the arrest "was prompted by complaints from Adobe" that Elcomsoft was selling a software program for $99 "that it claimed would allow users to bypass Adobe's copyright protection".[79]

On December 13, 2001, Sklyarov entered into an agreement with the United States & "admitted his conduct in a hearing before U.S. District Judge Whyte".^[74] He would be required to appear at trial and testify truthfully, & the United States agreed to defer prosecuting him until the conclusion of the case against Elcomsoft or for one year, "whichever is longer".^[74] He would be permitted to return to Russia in the meantime, subject to the court's supervision.^[74] The United States agreed that if he successfully completed the obligations in the agreement, it would dismiss the charges pending against him at the end of the year or when the case against Elcomsoft was complete.[74]

Judge Whyte denied Elcom Ltd.'s motions to dismiss the indictment "for violation of due process and on First Amendment grounds" on May 8, 2002, after hearing them on April 1, 2002.^[80] Whyte wrote that the conversion the program performs lets the buyer of an ebook make fair use of it without infringing the copyright laws, & that the same technology "also allows a user to engage in copyright infringement".^[80] On the trafficking ban, he wrote:

Thus, while it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention. That is part of the sacrifice Congress was willing to make in order to protect against unlawful piracy and promote the development of electronic commerce and the availability of copyrighted material on the Internet.

On December 17, 2002, a federal jury in San Jose returned a verdict of not guilty on all counts against Elcomsoft Ltd., according to an EFF release.^[75] CNET reported that the company had faced four charges related to directly designing & marketing software that could be used to crack eBook copyright protections, plus a charge of conspiring to do so, & that the jury acquitted it of all charges.[81]

According to CNET, the jury instructions said merely offering a product that could violate copyrights was not enough to warrant a conviction.^[81] Jury foreman Dennis Strader said the jurors agreed ElcomSoft's product was illegal but acquitted the company because they believed it did not mean to violate the law, CNET reported.^[81] Under cross-examination by the defense, an Adobe engineer acknowledged that his company did not find any illegal eBooks even after hiring two companies to search the web for unauthorized copies, according to CNET.[81]

EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann said in the EFF's release:

Today's jury verdict sends a strong message to federal prosecutors who believe that tool makers should be thrown in jail just because a copyright owner doesn't like the tools they build

Patent, copyright and AI measures #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=19)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=19)]

Patent eligibility bills and design-patent guidance

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=20)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=20)]

"Section 101 of the Patent Act defines the subject matter eligible for patent protection", the Supreme Court wrote in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, decided June 19, 2014.^[82] Quoting an earlier decision, the Court said it had "long held" that the section contains "an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."^[82] Under its two-step test, a court first asks "whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts"; if they are, the second step is a search for an "inventive concept", an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent "in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."^[82] The Court added that "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea" into a patent-eligible invention.[82]

The Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025 was introduced in both chambers on May 1, 2025, as S.1546 by Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) & as H.R.3152 by Representative Kevin Kiley (R-CA-3).[83][84]^[85] The Senate bill was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary that day, & the House bill was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.[83]^[84] The bill's findings say that under the Act & its amendments "the state of the law shall be as follows", beginning with "All judicial exceptions to patent eligibility are eliminated."^[86] Its rewritten Section 101 would bar a patent, "if claimed as such", on "A process that is substantially economic, financial, business, social, cultural, or artistic", even where at least one step refers to a machine or manufacture, but would not exclude such an invention "if the invention cannot practically be performed without the use of a machine or manufacture".^[86] Senator Tillis said in the release announcing the bills:

Unfortunately, a series of Supreme Court decisions have rendered patent eligibility law unclear, unreliable, and unpredictable, resulting in U.S. inventors being unable to obtain patents in areas where our economic peers offer patent protection.

The Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act, or PREVAIL Act, was introduced the same day as S.1553 by Senator Coons (D-DE) & as H.R.3160 by Representative Moran (R-TX-1), & each version was referred to its chamber's Committee on the Judiciary on May 1, 2025.[87]^[88] The bill summary on the Senate bill's page says it "addresses various issues relating to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)", including "imposing additional requirements on administrative patent validity challenges", which it describes as "proceedings to review and potentially cancel issued patents".[87]

Design patents come from 35 U.S.C. 171 ("Patents for designs"), which, as the USPTO's Manual of Patent Examining Procedure reproduces it, provides that whoever invents "any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent".^[89] Section 1504.01(a) of the manual, marked [R-01.2024], calls computer-generated icons "2-dimensional images which alone are surface ornamentation" & says a computer icon or a graphical user interface (GUI) "must be embodied in a display panel, or portion thereof" to meet that statute.^[89] The USPTO's supplemental guidance took effect on March 13, 2026 for design patent applications, & for proceedings under Chapter 30, 31 or 32, "filed before, on or after March 13, 2026".^[90] It says the depiction of a display screen "is no longer required" when both the title and claim "properly identify the article of manufacture", such as "a computer, a computer system, or a computer display panel", provided the designs are "properly disclosed and claimed".[90]

Copyright Office reports and court rulings on AI

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=21)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=21)]

The Copyright Office published Part 2 of its report on artificial intelligence (AI) & copyright, covering the copyrightability of outputs created using generative AI, on January 29, 2025.[91]^[92] Repeating a position the Office took in its early 2023 registration guidance, the report says "copyright protection in the United States requires human authorship", & it concludes that, "given current generally available technology", prompts alone do not give users "sufficient human control" to make them the authors of the output.^[92] The report adds that human authors hold copyright in their own works of authorship that can be seen in AI-generated outputs, in "the creative selection, coordination, or arrangement of material in the outputs", & in creative modifications of the outputs.[92]

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit decided Thaler v. Perlmutter on March 18, 2025.^[93] Computer scientist Stephen Thaler had listed a generative artificial intelligence he created, the "Creativity Machine", as the sole author of a picture, & the court affirmed the Copyright Office's denial of his application.^[93] It held that the Copyright Act of 1976 "requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being", & it said that this rule does not bar copyrighting "work that was made by or with the assistance of artificial intelligence."^[93] The Supreme Court denied Thaler's petition on March 2, 2026.[94]

On May 9, 2025, the Office released a pre-publication version of Part 3, on generative AI training.^[91] In it the Office "expects" that some training uses "will qualify as fair use, and some will not".^[95] Copying expressive works "from pirate sources" to generate unrestricted content that competes in the marketplace, "when licensing is reasonably available, is unlikely to qualify as fair use", the report says.^[95] Citing "the robust growth of voluntary licensing" & "the lack of stakeholder support for any statutory change", the Office "believes government intervention would be premature at this time."^[95] The Office's AI page says that "A final version of Part 3 will be published in the future", without substantive changes expected "in the analysis or conclusions".[91]

The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled on September 29, 2026 in a suit in which Thomson Reuters, which created the Westlaw legal research platform, charged ROSS Intelligence with "copying its editorial materials to train an AI platform."^[96] The court affirmed, holding that Thomson Reuters's "2,243 headnotes are original enough for copyright protection" & that ROSS's use of them was not fair.^[96] Headnotes, as the court describes them, are "annotations on opinions" that each reflect a point of law made in a judicial opinion.^[96] A September 30, 2026 post by Bob Ambrogi on LawSites, a legal technology blog, carries the update "ROSS says it will appeal to Supreme Court".[97]

On September 16, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Doe v. GitHub, Inc., a case over Copilot, "a paid subscription service jointly developed by GitHub and OpenAI", & OpenAI's Codex, "a generative AI tool that works autonomously to draft code based on a programmer's prompts".^[98] The plaintiffs sued under 17 U.S.C. § 1202(b), part of the DMCA, & the court agreed with the district court that they did not state a claim because their allegations show that the tools do not "remove or alter" copyright management information (CMI) "but instead create new works that never contained that information."^[98] The DMCA defines CMI to include a work's title, the name of its author or copyright owner, & the terms for its use, the court noted.^[98] Noting that Copilot's output "may in some cases be substantially similar to existing code", the court expressed "no view" on whether that similarity would allow the plaintiffs to assert a claim for copyright infringement.[98]

According to the Authors Guild, a writers' organization, Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted final approval on July 20, 2026 to a $1.5 billion class action settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic & entered final judgment,^[99] with what the Guild describes as an "approximately $3,000 per-work award".^[100] The legal news site JURIST reported the approval & described the case as one in which "it was alleged that Anthropic had used pirated books" to train its Claude AI platform.[101]

The copyright infringement case Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., filed July 7, 2023, has a May 2027 trial date; at a September 25, 2026 conference the court put the parties on notice about "potentially advancing the May 2027 trial date by a few weeks."[102]

Gregg and Koustenis, of Bean, Kinney & Korman, wrote in their April 13, 2026 article that "No court has ruled on whether AI-assisted reimplementation qualifies as a legitimate clean room process."^[55] They added that code produced by an automated process "may not be copyrightable by anyone, meaning competitors can freely copy it."^[55] Michael Justus of the law firm Carlton Fields wrote in Bloomberg Law on April 15, 2026 that "Original human-written code is generally copyrightable" & that "AI-generated code that lacks human authorship is ineligible for copyright protection under US law."^[103] Software developer Simon Willison wrote on March 5, 2026 that coding agents are "extraordinarily good at building a weird version of a 'clean room' implementation of code."[104]

AI bills and WIPO sessions

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=22)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=22)]

Senator Coons (D-DE) introduced the Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2025, or NO FAKES Act of 2025 (S.1367), on April 9, 2025, & it was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary that day.^[105] Its Congress.gov summary says the bill would create "a federal intellectual property right to protect individuals from unauthorized digital replicas" of their voice and visual likeness, giving as an example "digital content made using generative artificial intelligence".^[105] Two later Senate bills were also read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on the day they were introduced: the AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act (S.2367), introduced by Senator Hawley (R-MO) on July 21, 2025,^[106] & the TRAIN Act (S.2455), introduced by Senator Welch (D-VT) on July 24, 2025.^[107] As of October 11, 2026, Congress.gov lists the referral as the latest action on all three.[105][106][107]

In the House, Representative Schiff (D-CA-28) introduced the Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024 (H.R.7913) in the 118th Congress (2023–2024) on April 9, 2024; it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary that day, & its Congress.gov page lists the status "Introduced".[108]

The provisional annotated agenda for the 45th session of the Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), dated April 12, 2024, scheduled an information session on "the Opportunities and Challenges Raised by Generative AI as it Relates to Copyright", which it said "will be held as requested by SCCR Members at SCCR/44".^[109] At the 47th session, the chair's summary records, the committee asked the Secretariat to prepare a study on "policy or regulatory approaches to the relationship between AI training and copyright", on the understanding that preparing it "does not imply any commitment on the Work Plan."^[110] The same summary records that a proposal for a study of business models and economic opportunities created through the implementation of technological protection measures (TPMs), document SCCR/47/12, was presented & "will be further discussed at the next session."^[110] The chair's summary of the 48th session, dated May 22, 2026, says Prof. Daniel Gervais gave a brief update on "the envisaged scope of the upcoming Scoping Study on AI Training and Copyright", that the study "will be presented and discussed at the next session", & that the next session "will take place from November 30 to December 4, 2026."[111]

Section 1201 bills and drafts

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=23)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=23)]

Representative Spartz (R-IN-5) introduced the Farm Freedom to Repair Act (H.R.7850) on March 5, 2026, & it was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary that day; as of October 11, 2026, Congress.gov lists its status as "Introduced" & its cosponsors as zero.^[112] Its long title says it would amend title 17 "to provide for the diagnosis, maintenance, and repair of certain digital electronic agricultural equipment."^[113] The bill would add a subsection (l) to Section 1201 whose first paragraph reads:

Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person, for the purpose of the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of digital electronic agricultural equipment, to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Its paragraphs (2) and (3) would apply the same repair exception to subsections (a)(2) and (b)(1), letting a person "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in" the technology those subsections describe.^[113] Paragraph (4) would define "digital electronic agricultural equipment" as any agricultural product "dependent, in whole or in part, upon attached or embedded digital electronics to function."[113]

On December 22, 2020, according to his office's release, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, "released the first discussion draft of legislation to reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)", titled the Digital Copyright Act of 2021 (DCA).^[114] The release says the DCA "improves the exemptions available to users for circumventing technological protection measures (TPMs)"; its list of the draft's provisions includes modernizing the permanent exemptions "for security testing and encryption research, and adding new permanent exemptions" & "Streamlining the triennial rulemaking process for temporary exemptions".[114]

Software trade groups' filings

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=24)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=24)]

In comments dated October 30, 2023 for the Copyright Office's inquiry on AI & copyright, BSA | The Software Alliance ("BSA") wrote that computational analysis for AI training "normally has nothing to do with the expressive content of a work" & that "These uses fall squarely in fair use under copyright law."^[115] The comment, signed by Aaron Cooper, BSA's vice president for global policy, added: "In our view, existing copyright law should prove adequate to address questions of infringement."^[115] The Entertainment Software Association (ESA), in its comment of the same date, wrote that "New legislation on copyright liability is not needed at this time" & that current U.S. copyright law "should remain the model with respect to AI technology generally, and generative AI, especially."^[116] The Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA), which describes itself as "an association of roughly 380 companies involved in the business of information", wrote that its members "may not all agree on how a particular fact pattern ought to be resolved" but "do agree that legislation at this time is premature."^[117] SIIA added that "Many of our members already license their works for use as AI training data" & that "Licensing ought to be encouraged".[117]

BSA's Joseph Whitlock, senior director of policy, wrote of Assembly Bill 412, a California bill, in an April 29, 2025 letter to Ash Kalra, chair of the Committee on Judiciary: "We respectfully urge the Assembly not to advance AB 412."^[118] The letter says BSA "strongly supports ongoing collaboration among copyright holders and AI developers" on "consensus-based technical mechanisms to reflect copyright holder preferences on AI training."[118]

In the 2024 Section 1201 rulemaking, ESA opposed Class 6(b), which would have removed the premises limitation, the requirement that a preserved video game "not be distributed or made available outside of the physical premises of an eligible institution", from the video game exemption.^[69] ESA wrote that enabling widespread remote access to preserved games "with minimal supervision would present a serious risk to an important market", & that the industry's innovation & economic activity "depends on strong copyright protection for the software and other creative works".[119]

The federal lobbying reports of the Business Software Alliance, which its AB 412 letter calls "The Business Software Alliance ('BSA')",^[118] for the first two quarters of 2026, under the issue area "Copyright/Patent/Trademark", include "S. 1553 - Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act".[120]^[121] Each report gives one expense figure for all of the issue areas it lists, which also include education, defense & trade: $470,000.00 for the first quarter & $320,000.00 for the second.[120]^[121] The Entertainment Software Association's reports describe its work on the NO FAKES Act, under "Copyright/Patent/Trademark", as "Monitor and advocate for improvements to" the listed bills, S. 1367 & H.R. 2794 in the first quarter & S. 1367, S. 4591, H.R. 8915 & H.R. 2794 in the second.[122]^[123] Each ESA report gives one expense figure for every issue area it lists, including trade & telecommunications: $1,520,000.00 & $1,390,000.00.[122]^[123] SIIA's reports list, under "Copyright/Patent/Trademark", the NO FAKES Act of 2025, the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025, the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act, the RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2025 & the Customer Legal Ease and Relief (CLEAR) Act; each report also lists other issue areas, including education & torts, under one expense figure for the quarter: $1,369,519.00 & $1,396,909.00.[124][125]

In the Copyright Office's docket COLC-2026-0100, "Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works", opposition filings from Auto Innovators, an automakers' trade group, & the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) were posted on September 30, 2026.^[126] Among the new petitions, Dan Elkins, filing as an individual, asked to expand the existing exemption for lawfully acquired complete video games, so that circumvention would be allowed for them "to interoperate with independently implemented replacement network infrastructure" when the copyright owner "no longer provides materially equivalent original functionality."[127]

Repealing or rewriting Section 1201 #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=25)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=25)]

A Congress that reopens copyright law should repeal Section 1201, or rewrite it so that getting around a lock is illegal only when it is done to infringe a copyright & a tool built for a lawful use is lawful to make & share.

The Copyright Office's 2017 report says that although the WIPO Internet Treaties do not contain express language regarding trafficking in products used to get around locks, "Congress concluded that the adoption of such prohibitions was required for U.S. compliance".^[66] Article 11 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty is a single sentence;^[62] the Office's report says that article obligates member states to "provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures", that the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty "has a provision that is nearly identical to Article 11 of the WCT", & that several free trade agreements to which the United States is a party require that a violation of such a protection "constitute a separate cause of action that is independent of any infringement".[66]

In the ElcomSoft case, the court ruled that trafficking in tools for fair-use circumvention is unlawful even though circumventing for fair use is not,^[80] each count under Section 1201(b)(1)(A) carried a maximum statutory penalty of five years imprisonment,^[77] & Adobe's Colleen Pouliot said that with the Advanced eBook Processor no longer available in the United States, "from that perspective the DMCA worked".^[76] Under that rule a tool can vanish from the market without anyone proving that anyone infringed a copyright.

Section 102(b),[49]Sega,[57]Connectix^[58] & Google v. Oracle^[56] already leave room to study a program & rebuild what it does.

Once a lock is involved, the circuits split: in MDY the Ninth Circuit declined to follow the Federal Circuit's Chamberlain decision in imposing an infringement nexus requirement.[71]^[72] A program that rebuilds another program's functions can be a fair use in the Ninth Circuit & still violate Section 1201 there if it gets past a lock to do its job.

Such a program would have to fit Section 1201(f), which the Copyright Office's 2017 report reads to permit circumvention for interoperability in certain circumstances & subject to various statutory safeguards, while the few court decisions on the exemption have not resolved its ambiguity.^[66] H.R. 7850 would add a subsection to Section 1201 for "the diagnosis, maintenance, or repair of digital electronic agricultural equipment".[113]

Ars Technica quoted Thomas writing "Nothing is stopping you".^[1] For a clean-room clone that gets around no lock, he is right: such a clone sits outside Section 1201 today. The next clone may have to open a locked file or run alongside protected software to be useful, & its maker would then have to meet the conditions & safeguards of Section 1201(f). A farm-equipment carve-out would leave that maker exactly where Section 1201(f) leaves it now.

The FULU Foundation says that "FULU was founded to stand up to the anti-ownership agenda."^[128] It says it was born out of the Right to Repair movement,^[129] & its homepage backs "legal and legislative efforts to replace anti-consumer laws".^[128] FULU's Kevin O'Reilly wrote in a September 16, 2025 newsletter that, on the erosion of ownership in the digital economy, "Section 1201 of the DMCA reigns supreme", & that FULU was "currently working with a House member to introduce legislation".^[130] A May 13, 2026 FULU post by O'Reilly said that companies should not be able to "use Sec. 1201 as a cudgel to keep device owners in line".[131]

In the tenth triennial rulemaking, FULU petitioned for an exemption for programs on consumer devices whose maker "has discontinued service or software support essential to its use" or "has ceased business".^[132] FULU & the advocacy group Public Knowledge jointly petitioned for an exemption for programs on video home-monitoring devices, so that a device can "route video data to a local server".^[133] Two more FULU petitions would let owners remove advertising a manufacturer "pushed onto the user interface of a consumer device after the device was originally sold",^[134] & remove "Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) software from smart televisions".[135]

FULU president Louis Rossmann^[131] announced the foundation in a June 2025 video titled "We've started a foundation to bring back ownership", arguing in it that laws making it illegal to break the digital locks inside things people bought are anti-ownership.^[136] In an August 27, 2025 video, he argued that fixing something a person owns, or showing others how, should never carry legal ambiguity.^[137] In a June 2026 video, he argued that the law leaves people who would reverse engineer devices to make them work again legally barred from that work, & that breaking a digital lock on something a person owns should not bring a blanket five-year prison sentence; the video's chapter list includes the line "9:45 the DMCA should be gone".[138]

See also #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=26)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=26)]

References #

[
[edit](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&veaction=edit§ion=27)|

[edit source](https://consumerrights.wiki/index.php?title=User:Louis/ArtCraft_Adobe_clones_and_Section_1201_reform&action=edit§ion=27)]

1. ↑ ^1.00^1.01^1.02^1.03^1.04^1.05^1.06^1.07^1.08^1.09^1.10^1.11^1.12^1.13^1.14^1.15^1.16^1.17 Kyle Orland (2026-10-07).""Software is over": Bold AI developer takes aim at Adobe with open source clones" .Ars Technica . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-10. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
2. ↑ ^2.0^2.1^2.2^2.3^2.4"Understand Adobe's subscription terms and refund policies" . Adobe. 2026-01-27. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-06. Retrieved 2026-10-11. The fee note appears under the page's "Understand cancellation terms for Annual plan, paid monthly" heading.
3. ↑ ^3.0^3.1^3.2^3.3^3.4^3.5^3.6"Crafting Apps: open-source creative tools" .ArtCraft . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
4. ↑ ^4.00^4.01^4.02^4.03^4.04^4.05^4.06^4.07^4.08^4.09"storytold/photocraft: PhotoCraft: An open-source, photo editor written by scratch in pure Rust" .GitHub . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
5. ↑ ^5.00^5.01^5.02^5.03^5.04^5.05^5.06^5.07^5.08^5.09^5.10^5.11"17 U.S. Code § 1201 - Circumvention of copyright protection systems" .Legal Information Institute . Cornell Law School. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-08. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
6. ↑ ^6.0^6.1^6.2^6.3^6.4^6.5 Mike Pearl (2026-10-07)."Someone Vibe Coded a Free Knockoff of Adobe Creative Suite" .Gizmodo . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
7. ↑ ^7.0^7.1^7.2^7.3^7.4^7.5^7.6^7.7^7.8"storytold/pdfcraft: PdfCraft: An open-source PDF reader and editor written by scratch in pure Rust" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
8. ↑ ^8.0^8.1^8.2^8.3^8.4"storytold/vectorcraft: VectorCraft: An open-source, vector art tool written by scratch in pure Rust" .GitHub . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
9. ↑ ^9.0^9.1^9.2^9.3^9.4"storytold/filmcraft: FilmCraft: An open-source, nonlinear video editor written by scratch in pure Rust" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
10. ↑ ^10.0^10.1^10.2^10.3^10.4^10.5^10.6"storytold/lightcraft: LightCraft: An open-source non-destructive photo editor written by scratch in pure Rust" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
11. ↑ ^11.0^11.1^11.2^11.3"storytold/effectcraft" .GitHub . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-10. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
12. ↑ ^12.0^12.1^12.2"storytold/designcraft" .GitHub . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-09. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
13. ↑"ArtCraft — Controllable AI for Artists" .ArtCraft . 2026-10-03. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
14. ↑ ^14.0^14.1^14.2 Joe Wilkins (2026-10-08)."Adobe in Trouble After Someone Reverse Engineered Adobe Creative Suite and Released It as Open Source" .Futurism . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
15. ↑ ^15.0^15.1 Aaron Leong (2026-10-08)."Dev Uses AI To Build Clones Of Photoshop And Entire Adobe Suite For Free" .HotHardware . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
16. ↑"one-shot · storytold/photocraft@16941f7" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
17. ↑"filmcraft/ROADMAP.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
18. ↑ ^18.0^18.1"designcraft/ROADMAP.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
19. ↑ ^19.0^19.1"photocraft/ROADMAP.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
20. ↑ ^20.0^20.1"photocraft/docs/target-app-parity.md" .GitHub . Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.

21. [↑](#cite_ref-lightcraft-roadmap_21-0)["lightcraft/ROADMAP.md"](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/storytold/lightcraft/main/ROADMAP.md) .*GitHub* . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
22. [↑](#cite_ref-effectcraft-roadmap_22-0)["effectcraft/ROADMAP.md"](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/storytold/effectcraft/main/ROADMAP.md) .*GitHub* . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
23. [↑](#cite_ref-pdfcraft-notice_23-0)["pdfcraft/NOTICE"](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/storytold/pdfcraft/main/NOTICE) .*GitHub* . Retrieved 2026-10-11.

24. ↑ Louis Rossmann (2024-06-18)."Adobe gets sued by FTC for roofying customers with hidden fees; GOOD! 😂" .YouTube . Louis Rossmann. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11. The remarks on his own editing software begin at 8:52.
25. ↑ ^25.0^25.1"United States v. Adobe, Inc., 5:24-cv-03630" . CourtListener (Free Law Project). Retrieved 2026-10-11.
26. ↑ ^26.0^26.1"United States Files Complaint Against Adobe and Two Adobe Executives for Alleged Violations of Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act" . United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. 2024-06-17. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
27. ↑ ^27.0^27.1^27.2"FTC Takes Action Against Adobe and Executives for Hiding Fees, Preventing Consumers from Easily Cancelling Software Subscriptions" . Federal Trade Commission. 2024-06-17. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-07. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
28. ↑ ^28.0^28.1^28.2"Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, United States v. Adobe, Inc., No. 24-cv-03630-NW (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 84" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP). 2025-05-02. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2025-05-13. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
29. ↑ ^29.0^29.1^29.2^29.3^29.4^29.5^29.6"Order for Permanent Injunction, Civil Penalty Judgment, and Other Relief, United States v. Adobe, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-03630-NW-SVK (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 126" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP). 2026-04-10. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
30. ↑"Adobe Agrees to $150 Million Settlement and Injunction to Resolve Alleged Violations of the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act" . United States Department of Justice, Office of Public Affairs. 2026-03-13. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
31. ↑ ^31.0^31.1"Adobe's Statement Regarding the Department of Justice Settlement" . Adobe. 2026-03-13. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
32. ↑ ^32.0^32.1"Final Judgment, United States v. Adobe, Inc., No. 5:24-cv-03630-NW (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 127" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP). 2026-04-10. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
33. ↑ ^33.0^33.1^33.2"Adobe settlement benefit FAQ" . Adobe. 2026-04-30. Archived fromthe original on 2026-04-30. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
34. ↑ ^34.0^34.1 Adobe Communications Team (2024-06-06)."A clarification on Adobe Terms of Use" .Adobe Blog . Adobe. Archived fromthe original on 2026-09-17. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
35. ↑ ^35.0^35.1 Scott Belsky and Dana Rao (2024-06-10)."Updating Adobe's Terms of Use" .Adobe Blog . Adobe. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
36. ↑ ^36.0^36.1^36.2"Adobe General Terms of Use" . Adobe. 2024-06-18. Retrieved 2026-10-11. Archived copy of the version published June 18, 2024, captured February 16, 2025.
37. ↑ Louis Rossmann (2024-06-06)."Adobe roofies all of their customers" .YouTube . Louis Rossmann. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11. The remarks on changing terms are at 0:12–0:36; the remarks on alternatives are at 6:07–6:14.
38. ↑ ^38.0^38.1"photocraft AGENTS.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
39. ↑"pdfcraft AGENTS.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
40. ↑ ^40.0^40.1^40.2^40.3^40.4"vectorcraft AGENTS.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
41. ↑"filmcraft AGENTS.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
42. ↑ ^42.0^42.1"designcraft AGENTS.md" .GitHub . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
43. ↑ ^43.0^43.1^43.2^43.3^43.4^43.5^43.6^43.7"Adobe General Terms of Use" . Adobe. 2025-10-03. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
44. ↑ ^44.0^44.1"Adobe General Terms of Use" . Adobe. 2020-03-16. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check|archive-url= value (help )
45. ↑"Adobe General Terms of Use" . Adobe. 2022-08-01. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check|archive-url= value (help )
46. ↑"Software Product Specific Terms" (PDF). Adobe. 2024-06-18. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
47. ↑ Jeremy Gray (2026-10-07)."Someone Rebuilt Free, Open-Source Versions of Photoshop, Premiere, and Lightroom Using AI" .PetaPixel . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
48. ↑ Penny Horwood (2026-10-08)."This time, software really might be over" .Computing . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
49. ↑ ^49.0^49.1^49.2"17 U.S.C. 102: Subject matter of copyright: In general" . U.S. Government Publishing Office. Archived fromthe original on 2026-05-13. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
50. ↑ ^50.0^50.1^50.2"Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879)" . Justia. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
51. ↑ ^51.0^51.1"Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)" (PDF). Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
52. ↑"Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)" . CourtListener, Free Law Project. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
53. ↑"Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996)" . CourtListener, Free Law Project. 1996-01-16. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
54. ↑ ^54.0^54.1"Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc" . Caselaw Access Project, Harvard Law School Library. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
55. ↑ ^55.0^55.1^55.2 Andrew W. Gregg; Kandis M. Koustenis (2026-04-13)."512,000 Lines, One Night, Zero Permission: The Claude Code Leak and the Legal Crisis of AI Clean Rooms" . Bean, Kinney & Korman. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link )
56. ↑ ^56.0^56.1^56.2^56.3"Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc" . Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. 2021-04-05. Archived fromthe original on 2026-09-18. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
57. ↑ ^57.0^57.1^57.2^57.3^57.4^57.5^57.6^57.7"Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. 1992-10-20. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
58. ↑ ^58.0^58.1^58.2^58.3^58.4^58.5"Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corporation, 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. 2000-02-10. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
59. ↑ ^59.0^59.1^59.2^59.3^59.4^59.5^59.6"Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. 2003-01-29. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
60. ↑ ^60.0^60.1^60.2^60.3"Davidson & Associates v. Jung, No. 04-3654 (8th Cir. Sept. 1, 2005)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. 2005-09-01. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-09-27. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
61. ↑ ^61.0^61.1^61.2^61.3^61.4"Tenth Triennial Section 1201 Proceeding, 2027 Cycle" . U.S. Copyright Office. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
62. ↑ ^62.0^62.1^62.2"WIPO Copyright Treaty (adopted in Geneva on December 20, 1996)" .WIPO Lex . World Intellectual Property Organization. 1996-12-20. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-02. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
63. ↑"Summary of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT) (1996)" . World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
64. ↑"Actions - H.R.2281 - 105th Congress (1997-1998): Digital Millennium Copyright Act" .Congress.gov . Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
65. ↑"Public Law 105-304, Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (PDF).GovInfo . U.S. Government Publishing Office. 1998-10-28. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-04. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
66. ↑ ^66.00^66.01^66.02^66.03^66.04^66.05^66.06^66.07^66.08^66.09^66.10^66.11^66.12"Section 1201 of Title 17: A Report of the Register of Copyrights" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. 2017-06. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-08. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check date values in:|date= (help )
67. ↑ ^67.0^67.1"Additional copyright information" .adobe.com . Adobe Systems Incorporated. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
68. ↑"Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies" .Federal Register . U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. 2024-10-28. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
69. ↑ ^69.0^69.1"Section 1201 Rulemaking: Ninth Triennial Proceeding to Determine Exemptions to the Prohibition on Circumvention, Recommendation of the Register of Copyrights" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. 2024-10. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2024-10-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check date values in:|date= (help )
70. ↑ ^70.0^70.1^70.2"Exemptions To Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works" .Federal Register . U.S. Copyright Office, Library of Congress. 2026-06-09. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
71. ↑ ^71.0^71.1^71.2"The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc., 381 F.3d 1178 (Fed. Cir. 2004)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. 2004-08-31. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
72. ↑ ^72.0^72.1^72.2^72.3"MDY Industries, LLC v. Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. 2010-12-14. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
73. ↑ ^73.0^73.1^73.2^73.3^73.4"Adobe FAQ: ElcomSoft legal background" .adobe.com . Adobe Systems Incorporated. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
74. ↑ ^74.0^74.1^74.2^74.3^74.4"Russian National Enters into Agreement with the United States on First Digital Millennium Copyright Act Case" .cybercrime.gov . United States Attorney, Northern District of California, U.S. Department of Justice. 2001-12-13. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
75. ↑ ^75.0^75.1^75.2"Jury Acquits Elcomsoft in eBook Copyright Case" . Electronic Frontier Foundation. 2002-12-17. Archived fromthe original on 2025-05-29. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
76. ↑ ^76.0^76.1^76.2^76.3"Adobe, Electronic Frontier Foundation Call for Release of Russian Programmer" .adobe.com . Adobe Systems Incorporated. 2001-07-23. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
77. ↑ ^77.0^77.1^77.2"Russian Man Charged in California under Digital Millennium Copyright Act with Circumventing Adobe eBook Reader" .cybercrime.gov . United States Attorney, Northern District of California, U.S. Department of Justice. 2001-07-17. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
78. ↑ ^78.0^78.1^78.2^78.3^78.4"First Indictment Under Digital Millennium Copyright Act Returned Against Russian National, Company, in San Jose, California" .cybercrime.gov . United States Attorney, Northern District of California, U.S. Department of Justice. 2001-08-28. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
79. ↑ Calvin Reid (2002-12-23)."Jury Acquits Elcomsoft in E-book Hack Case" .Publishers Weekly . Archived fromthe original on 2024-04-13. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
80. ↑ ^80.0^80.1^80.2^80.3 Ronald M. Whyte (2002-05-08)."United States v. Elcom Ltd., 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2002)" .CourtListener . Free Law Project. Archived fromthe original on 2024-07-08. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
81. ↑ ^81.0^81.1^81.2^81.3"ElcomSoft verdict: Not guilty" . CNET. 2002-12-17. Archived fromthe original on 2024-08-17. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
82. ↑ ^82.0^82.1^82.2^82.3"Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l" . Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. 2014-06-19. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
83. ↑ ^83.0^83.1"S.1546 - Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Archived fromthe original on 2026-09-19. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
84. ↑ ^84.0^84.1"H.R.3152 - Patent Eligibility Restoration Act of 2025" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
85. ↑ ^85.0^85.1"Tillis, Coons, Kiley, and Peters Reintroduce Landmark Legislation to Restore American Innovation" . Office of Senator Thom Tillis. 2025-05-01. Archived fromthe original on 2026-03-03. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
86. ↑ ^86.0^86.1"S. 1546 (Introduced-in-Senate)" . U.S. Government Publishing Office. 2025-05-01. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
87. ↑ ^87.0^87.1"S.1553 - PREVAIL Act" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
88. ↑"H.R.3160 - PREVAIL Act" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
89. ↑ ^89.0^89.1"1504-Examination" . United States Patent and Trademark Office. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-05. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
90. ↑ ^90.0^90.1"Supplemental Guidance for Examination of Design Patent Applications Related to Computer-Generated Interfaces and Icons" . Federal Register (United States Patent and Trademark Office). 2026-03-13. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
91. ↑ ^91.0^91.1^91.2"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence" . U.S. Copyright Office. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-07. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
92. ↑ ^92.0^92.1^92.2"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 2: Copyrightability" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. 2025-01. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-03. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check date values in:|date= (help )
93. ↑ ^93.0^93.1^93.2"Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 23-5233 (D.C. Cir. 2025)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 2025-03-18. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-02. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
94. ↑"Docket for 25-449" . Supreme Court of the United States. Archived fromthe original on 2026-07-08. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
95. ↑ ^95.0^95.1^95.2"Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, Part 3: Generative AI Training (Pre-Publication Version)" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. 2025-05-09. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
96. ↑ ^96.0^96.1^96.2"Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 25-2153 (3d Cir. 2026)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 2026-09-29. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
97. ↑ Bob Ambrogi (2026-09-30)."3rd Circuit Rules For Thomson Reuters In Its Copyright Fight Against Legal Research Startup ROSS" . LawSites. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
98. ↑ ^98.0^98.1^98.2^98.3"Doe v. GitHub, Inc., No. 24-7700 (9th Cir. 2026)" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 2026-09-16. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
99. ↑"Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement; Granting in Part Motion for Attorney's Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Plaintiff Service Awards; Judgment, Bartz v. Anthropic PBC, No. 3:24-cv-05417-AMO (N.D. Cal.), ECF No. 680" (PDF). United States District Court for the Northern District of California (via CourtListener RECAP). 2026-07-20. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
100. ↑"Court Grants Final Approval of $1.5 Billion Anthropic Copyright Settlement" . The Authors Guild. 2026-07-21. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-06. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
101. ↑ Andrew Bialek (2026-07-22)."Judge approves record $1.5 billion AI copyright settlement involving Anthropic" . JURIST. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
102. ↑"Kadrey v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 3:23-cv-03417" . CourtListener, Free Law Project. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
103. ↑ Michael Justus (2026-04-15)."AI Makes Securing Copyright Protection for Software Code Tricky" . Bloomberg Law. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
104. ↑ Simon Willison (2026-03-05)."Can coding agents relicense open source through a "clean room" implementation of code?" . Simon Willison's Weblog. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
105. ↑ ^105.0^105.1^105.2"S.1367 - NO FAKES Act of 2025" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
106. ↑ ^106.0^106.1"S.2367 - AI Accountability and Personal Data Protection Act" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
107. ↑ ^107.0^107.1"S.2455 - TRAIN Act" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Archived fromthe original on 2025-12-29. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
108. ↑"H.R.7913 - Generative AI Copyright Disclosure Act of 2024" . Congress.gov, Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
109. ↑"SCCR/45/INF/3 PROV., Provisional Annotated Agenda" (PDF). World Intellectual Property Organization. 2024-04-12. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
110. ↑ ^110.0^110.1"SCCR/47/SUMMARY, Summary by the Chair" (PDF). World Intellectual Property Organization. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
111. ↑"SCCR/48/SUMMARY, Summary by the Chair" (PDF). World Intellectual Property Organization. 2026-05-22. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
112. ↑"Actions - H.R.7850 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Farm Freedom to Repair Act" .Congress.gov . Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
113. ↑ ^113.0^113.1^113.2^113.3^113.4"Text - H.R.7850 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Farm Freedom to Repair Act" .Congress.gov . Library of Congress. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
114. ↑ ^114.0^114.1"Tillis Releases Landmark Discussion Draft to Reform the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" . Office of U.S. Senator Thom Tillis. 2020-12-22. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
115. ↑ ^115.0^115.1 Aaron Cooper (2023-10-30)."Comments of BSA, The Software Alliance, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Docket No. 2023-06" (PDF).Regulations.gov . BSA, The Software Alliance. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
116. ↑ Bijou Mgbojikwe (2023-10-30)."Comments of the Entertainment Software Association, Artificial Intelligence and Copyright, Docket No. COLC-2023-0006" (PDF).Regulations.gov . Entertainment Software Association. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
117. ↑ ^117.0^117.1 Christopher A. Mohr."Comments of the Software & Information Industry Association, Artificial Intelligence & Copyright, Docket No. 2023-6" (PDF).Regulations.gov . Software & Information Industry Association. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
118. ↑ ^118.0^118.1^118.2 Joseph Whitlock (2025-04-29)."Letter to the Honorable Ash Kalra, Chair, Assembly Committee on Judiciary, re AB 412" (PDF). Business Software Alliance. Archived fromthe original (PDF) on 2025-08-19. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
119. ↑"Class 6(b) Opposition Comments of the Entertainment Software Association" (PDF). U.S. Copyright Office. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
120. ↑ ^120.0^120.1"Filing Instance: Business Software Alliance, 1st Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
121. ↑ ^121.0^121.1"Filing Instance: Business Software Alliance, 2nd Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
122. ↑ ^122.0^122.1"Filing Instance: Entertainment Software Association, 1st Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
123. ↑ ^123.0^123.1"Filing Instance: Entertainment Software Association, 2nd Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
124. ↑"Filing Instance: SIIA, 1st Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
125. ↑"Filing Instance: SIIA, 2nd Quarter - Report, 2026" .Lobbying Disclosure Act database . U.S. Senate Office of Public Records and House Clerk. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
126. ↑"Docket COLC-2026-0100, Exemptions to Permit Circumvention of Access Controls on Copyrighted Works, Comments" .Regulations.gov . Retrieved 2026-10-11.
127. ↑"New Petition, Dan Elkins (COLC-2026-0100-0015)" (PDF).Regulations.gov . U.S. Copyright Office. 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.

128. ↑ <sup>[128.0](#cite_ref-fulu-home_128-0)</sup><sup>[128.1](#cite_ref-fulu-home_128-1)</sup>["FULU Foundation"](https://fulu.org/) . FULU Foundation. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
129. [↑](#cite_ref-fulu-our-story_129-0)["Our Story"](https://fulu.org/our-story) . FULU Foundation. Retrieved 2026-10-11.

130. ↑ ^131.0^131.1 Kevin O'Reilly (2026-05-13)."We're taking a stand against Bambu Labs. Join us" . FULU Foundation. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
131. ↑"New Petition, FULU Foundation (COLC-2026-0100-0024)" (PDF).Regulations.gov . 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
132. ↑"New Petition, Public Knowledge and FULU Foundation (COLC-2026-0100-0028)" (PDF).Regulations.gov . 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
133. ↑"New Petition, FULU Foundation (COLC-2026-0100-0030)" (PDF).Regulations.gov . 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
134. ↑"New Petition, Jailbreaking Smart TVs, FULU Foundation (COLC-2026-0100-0031)" (PDF).Regulations.gov . 2026-08-26. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
135. ↑ Louis Rossmann (2025-06)."We've started a foundation to bring back ownership" .YouTube . Louis Rossmann. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check date values in:|date= (help )
136. ↑ Louis Rossmann (2025-08-27)."We've started an organization to reform the DMCA - here's why" .YouTube . Louis Rossmann. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.
137. ↑ Louis Rossmann (2026-06)."Original creator of the DMCA explains why it should be reformed or abolished" .YouTube . Louis Rossmann. Archived fromthe original on 2026-10-11. Retrieved 2026-10-11.{{cite web }} : Check date values in:|date= (help )

source & further reading

consumerrights.wiki — original article Microsoft Copilot Persona Adobe