It's not copyright material, you see, its a feature withing the program, that allows you to costumize a pattern.
Lets say we have a very old system, which had only 3 optionals? would it be a copy if i used 1 of those 3 options just because anotehr artist did?
No its not copyright material. It havent changed since.
However, it might be about time it should be some copyright material, since the costumization nowdays are pretty advanced and unlimited of options.
but i place my vote on both sides acturally.
on 1 side. an artist made huge effort to create a brush, but on the 2nd side. another person used the brush to create something themself, somtimes with less, but other times with more effort. either way, they both did effort in their works.
You can see this phenomaenon in Music and remixes aswell.
A DJ gains an income for a performence, based on synths from other producers who gain money from their efforts. At first glimpse, everyone sees a DJ as a skum who earn easy money on others works, but acturally, you should not judge on what or how or why they copy.
In the end, a DJ performs and create, live. And this requires a huge amount of effort and inspiration, sometimes, a DJ works harder then the original producers.
on a simple view, its like borrowing a hammer from your neighbour to earn credit on something you invented without giving him a fee. There is simply no copyrigth on that part in the law, but it might appear in the near future.