Photopea Developer Says GitHub Refused to Remove Cracked Copies of His Software

The complaint

IvanK_net, the developer of Photopea, a popular photo editor that runs in a web browser, has reported that GitHub is hosting tens of repositories containing modified copies of his software. According to his Hacker News post, people are asking AI models to take the JavaScript code from his website, remove all ads from it, and publish the result as a "new product" on GitHub for everyone to download.

The developer stated that he wants his website to be the only source of a stable version of Photopea. He also said he has received emails from people complaining about problems in Photopea, and it took several emails to figure out that they were not actually using Photopea.com, which he says hurts his reputation.

GitHub's response

The developer reported the repositories to GitHub on September 4, 2026. A month later, he received a response stating: "Thank you for submitting a DMCA takedown notice. We've reviewed the information you've provided, and based on the facts presented to us, we're unable to confirm a violation of 17 U.S. Code § 1201."

In his post, the developer asked what he could do next and whether he should look for a lawyer to deal with the issue outside the digital world. He also expressed doubt that a real person ever looked at his report, suggesting the response is probably sent automatically to most people.

Community reaction

The post received 54 points and 52 comments. Multiple commenters advised the developer to consult an attorney experienced with intellectual property law, noting that IP law is complex and that the DMCA request may not have been filed correctly. Some suggested pursuing trademark protection, which could help against copies using the Photopea brand, though commenters noted that trademarks protect names and logos rather than code itself.

One commenter argued that GitHub's response is improper, stating that proper DMCA 512(h) notices require the host to remove or disable content first without verifying the claims, and that refusing to act could open GitHub to liability. Others observed that client-side JavaScript is inherently exposed and that LLMs can now reproduce software from available source code, making code secrecy a weak business model.

Sources: Hackernews