Re: Extension of the Existing Situation
A problematic comparison - when using a programming language compiler we are deliberately and knowingly invoking a series of transforms that are explicitly intended to create a copy of the meaning of the input source code. Compiler writers take pains to record how the input has been copied (via, for any given compiler, a fixed set of well understood transforms) into the output - we use this record in our debuggers to demonstrate that the copying has occurred and to determine how it has been modified - i.e. optimisations such as constant folding, loop unrolling.
We also have an agreement in the profession that these automated transforms do not constitute making substantive changes to the original work. This has been thrashed out over the years, despite attempts by compiler writers in the past to make claims that they owned the output object code and therefore they could put limitations on what you could do with it (we see remnants of that in licences that cover, e.g., "if you make more than $XXXX you must pay more for your licence").
In a compiler, the intent is always to maintain a 1:1 relationship with that the input source expresses and the output binary performs - without that, we just call the compiler a broken, useless thing. The uses of anything we call a "transform" are intended to maintain that relationship - in effect, the selected transforms are "trivial" and comparable (in lay term) to just shifting the axes (and even that we'd expect to demonstrate to the layity with simple pictures rather than just using those words).
> If you take the source code for Adobe Photoshop and produce your own binary based on that source code, is that copying?
Yes, by the agreed-upon terms common to our industry
> Is it still copying if you use a different compiler from the one Adobe uses?
Yes, see above.
> Or if you write your own compiler?
Yes, see above.
> If you take a work written in English rather than C, and use your own compiler to produce a binary, does that make any difference?
If - and only if - the English was a precise and unambiguous description of how to compute some value (aka an algorithm) *AND* your use of the word "binary" is to be taken with same meaning as for the previous questions, then - No. No difference. But then again, to get that level of precision you must have been selective over what form and content of "English" you'll accept: congratulations, you have just invented COBOL-2023.
HOWEVER if your last question was intended to refer to the use of English and the behaviour of the LLMs - where the transforms are *not* intended to maintain a 1:1 relationship (as evidenced in the ability to use phrases like "in the style of"), where there is, as yet, no tried and tested agreement within the professional community that this relationship is intended to hold, and, if it ever doesn't, the tool is broken, where the word "binary" is being used to describe something other than something that is executable (in whole or following linkage) - then, in that case, the only response to your question is:
 Not trvial to encode or get right, not even to think up in the first place, but in "artistic" terms compared to the sort "transformative" acts that copyright usually gets involved in: for a start, most (all?) of those are lossy whilst ours are even capable to increasing precision - e.g. type inference.