Copyright liability for encoded files? What are the details of copyright liability for an uploaded, encoded file? For example, let's say there's a copyright video, then someone encodes the entire file by shifting each of the bytes (either by a static value or repeating string of bytes, like a password for a zip file), then let's say they divide all of the bytes into groups of 4 and map all of them to pixels in RGBA format, then write those pixels to an encoded picture file, and post it online as &quot;abstract art.&quot; Then makes, or gets someone else to make and publish, a program that is downloaded onto the end user's computer, which takes as in input the downloaded image that was encoded like above, and decodes it back into the copyright [video, or anything else] file. The question is: Who is liable? The obvious answer may be the one uploading the image, since it contains the copyright material within it, but can that person make a legitimate argument in court that he just randomly generated the &quot;abstract art&quot; and the fact that it was compiled into a format that can later be decompiled and the bytes re-shifted with a separate program, offline, which contains copyright content, is not his liability? And if so, is the person who wrote the program [which might even be him himself if the program was published in a different context] make the argument that the program isn't meant to specifically decode copyright material, just to decode anything in a specific format, whatever it is, and the fact that in this case the end user happened to use it to decode a file that happened to be encoded in such a way that it could be decoded into a copyright file, is not his liability? Then if so, at least the end user should be liable, since at the end of the day he has decoded copyright content on his device, and once he realized it he should have deleted it. But if so, would it then make a difference if the offline program decodes the file into system RAM only, and not to a file on disk?
Encoding is making an unlicensed derivate or copy Let's say instead of a video file, we take a short story. For the sake of argument, let's take For sale: baby shoes, never worn. We can apply the Cesar-7 Chiffre and get Mvy zhsl: ihif zovlz, ulcly dvyu. Or we use the NVA's TAPIR pattern: 56644 83690 62182 90838 15005 07883 69596 41698 29183 81317 41483 76644 38289 That is obviously nonsense. But all these patterns are at least derivative of the original work. But in fact, they full encode the message, only in a different format, and are reversible. This means we don't just make a derivate, we made a copy, which can be read with the proper means. It is the sole right of the author or rightsholder to license making copies, no matter how they are encoded. Or to rephrase: If it is reversible, it is a copy. If it is not reversible, it is a derivative. Neither is allowed. Subquestions who is liable? The one encoding the file committed copyright infringement for making an unlicensed copy. Period. No way around. The one downloading the file committed copyright infringement by copying the unlicensed copy. No matter if they knew what it was or decoded it, they made a copy of an (encoded) unlicensed copy. Deleting the file btw does not make the copyright infringement go away. can that person make a legitimate argument in court that he just randomly generated the &quot;abstract art&quot; [...] ? That would be perjury. They chucked a whole work into an algorithm. Saying anything else but &quot;I chucked the work into the algorithm&quot; is perjury. Which incidentally can be easily proven if the algorithm is reversible - it will prove the input. is the person who wrote the program [...] make the argument that the program isn't meant to specifically decode copyright material They can, but they are not even on the hook for copyright infringement in the first place. They provide a tool with legitimate uses, such as transmitting messages in a secure way. Encoded files inside other images are for example used by journalists to get files out of oppressive regimes. The liability araises only at the user who uses it illegally. But if so, would it then make a difference if the offline program decodes the file into system RAM only, and not to a file on disk? No. Think about an ISO file. ISO files are 1:1 copies of how a CD is written. They can be burned 1:1 onto a CD without any extra preparation, which is their legitimate use: be easy to distribute and verify copies of for example installation files. ISO files can also be mounted in a virtual CD drive, which emulates a CD drive. If you legitimately got the Windows ISO from Microsoft (or a licensed retailer) directly, you can mount it or burn it, or use it for all legitimate purposes. However, downloading the ISO for a game doesn't change that you made an illegal copy of the game, no matter that you need to mount or burn the ISO to actually access it.
It is illegal to make copies of copyrighted materials without license. In the case of software, obviously it will be illegal to make copies by copying and installing the software without a license, but we are not talking about that. If I have a legitimate license of say Photoshop, and I start the application, parts or all of the code will be loaded into the RAM of my computer, which is a copy. According to copyright law, it is legal for me to make that copy. You are allowed to copy legitimately owned software into RAM to execute it. If your copy of Photoshop is illegal, and you start the application, the copy that is made into RAM is again copyright infringement. Having read the software license for the software that you get when you buy a Mac, it seems that if you steal my computer and just start the operating system, you are committing copyright infringement, and it seems that if you buy such a stolen computer and just start the operating system, you are committing copyright infringement as well, because the license that I received when I purchased the computer covers anyone using it with my permission, and covers anyone who legally buys the computer from me, but doesn't cover a thief. Now does this affect the work that you did? No, you have the full copyright on your work. Copyright law doesn't require that your tools are all used legitimately.
There is no case law as yet However, the most likely situation is that there is no copyright in the original works because they are computer-generated. There is certainly copyright in the code that created the art but the output of that code, the art itself, would probably not be subject to copyright. Copyright only exists in art created by humans. The US Ninth Circuit has held that animals cannot create copyrighted works. Subsequently, the US Copyright office has rejected applications for registration (a prerequisite to a suit in the US) of computer-generated art because it “lacks the human authorship necessary to support a copyright claim.” While this position has not been tested in the courts, I don't think they are any more likely to grant copyright to a program than they were to a monkey. What's going on? The OP states that there is litigation: there isn't. What there is, is a DCMA takedown request from Larva Labs. If this is complied with that will be the end of the matter; if it isn't then there may be litigation. However, before Larva Labs could sue CryptoPunks in the US they would first need to get a writ of mandamus to force the USCO to register it. If they try and fail then there will be a legally binding court decision that Larva Labs don't own the copyright in any of their computer-generated art. Which kills their business model and, presumably, them. This would be a very high-risk move. They may choose to sue in a jurisdiction where registration is not a prerequisite, however, that court would still need to be satisfied that there was a copyright that could be breached. So that's just a different take on the same problem. I have ignored the issue of NFTs as these are legally problematic in their own right and irrelevant to the main question. However, the NFT and the artwork are not the same thing.
To do so I used some images and Gifs which may be under copyright but since I don't earn money for myself and there is no company backing me I was hoping that there is some protection for private persons like me who just want to showcase the project. Sorry. If your website is public facing (i.e. not password protected and available only to family and close friends), you need to follow copyright law. There is no exception to copyright just because a project is run by an individual for non-commercial purposes. I am also insecure about the GDPR regulations since I give users the ability to create an account and try it out. Your profile says you're in the EU. Then you need to comply with the GDPR. Is there any way to protect me against greedy lawyers and companies? Could I write something like: "This website is a peace of art" and save myself with arguments like "artistic freedom" or "free speech"? Nope. A controversial website run by Peter Sunde had at one point a "free speech" disclaimer (similar to the one you propose) posted. However, Sunde did never use this defense in court: Finnish court slaps Peter Sunde with €350k fine. If he had shown up in court, I am pretty sure the court would have told him that such a disclaimer has no legal merit. The only protection that will make you completely safe is to adhere to the law.
Can you be liable for damages? Under Tort Law, yes. Let's assume someone developed a virus based on your code. The virus caused millions of dollars of damage. The plaintiff (software vendor) can argue that: You have a Duty of Care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee are likely to injure your neighbor Donoghue v. Stevenson (1932) (UK) The concept of Duty of Care is also found in U.S. law, for example in MacPerson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), which established that negligence does not require a contract. Breach of Duty: A reasonable person can foresee that the "proof of concept" can cause harm. The act of releasing code, therefore, falls short of the expected standard. If you are a IT professional, it is going to be difficult to defend this point. There is a causation relationship between your code release and the resulted damage. You are liable for negligence. Damage: It is likely that users will sue the software vendor for their loses. The software vendor will then sue you, since because of you, the software vendor has to compensate to its customers. This, of course, depends on what exactly did you release to the public. For example, if significant effort is needed to convert your "proof of concept" to an actual exploit, and you have provided a workaround to avoid this vulnerability, you may defend yourself by arguing that the cause and effect linkage is too remote. So I must keep the report private? What if the software is open source? Not really. You should take reasonable measure to ensure that your "proof of concept" is not an actual exploit, and a hacker needs considerable time to develop a functioning malicious software. CVE is a platform where vulnerabilities are publicly shared. What if you have given the vendor reasonable time to fix the vulnerability? It does not matter (to you) if time has been given for the vendor to fix the vulnerability. It does matter for the vendor, because if something happens later, the vendor is liable for knowing the problem well in advance and have not allocated the appropriate resources to correct the problem. To demonstrate a vulnerability exist does not require instruction of how to utilize this vulnerability. For example you can record a video showing the effects of the hack. Here (Wayback Machine; original link is dead) is an interesting read about Motorola taking matters into their own hands after they discovered a vulnerability on the Xerox CP-V system and Xerox did not patch the problem.
It's a contract violation if you're under the EULA. It may be a contract of adhesion, but such "clickwrap" contracts been found to be acceptable and enforceable in software EULAs out of necessity. However, there may be some limits. If you're not under the EULA, as you argue, then you lack a license to use the software at all and it's an outright copyright violation and/or a theft or misappropriation of the software. Whether or not you can be sued depends in part on what you do with it — if you don't release the material or otherwise cause damages then there's not much to sue for... Added for clarification: to answer the framing question, supposing neither contract or copyright applied, one could be sued in tort or in equity (i.e. for unjust enrichment).
Copyright law requires permission of the rights holder to e.g. post material. The terms of that permission could be very complicated, as seen in royalties contracts with publishers, but they can also be simple. If someone asks "can I post your video on my website" and you say "Sure, as long as you give me credit", then they can post the video on their site as long as that say something like "This video was made by Jake" or something like that. There is no exception to permission where permission is retroactively withdrawn just in case it turns out that one can make money off of the video. However: you gave That Guy permission, and that does not mean that the hundreds of Other Guys have permission. So you can pursue all of the Other Guys and demand that they take the video down, or require some payment to get your permission.
If users were to copy dictionary definitions, for instance Oxford or Cambridge) and make the word lists public, is it a copyright infringement? If the dictionary entries are protected by copyright then your user has infringed that copyright by posting the dictionary entries. Am I responsible for this activity? No. But you may be responsible for removing it if you get a request. Can dictionary owners charge me against copyright issue? If you follow the procedures outlines in the DMCA you can be protected from liability.