> The most comparable example is if you were hired as a contractor and the employer asked you to write verbatim some copyright content you'd memorised. If the employer then published it, they'd be the one liable, not you.
No, you'd both be liable. You are not allowed to create copies of a copyrighted work, even from memory, for any commercial purpose. Making it public or not is irrelevant.
This is more obvious with spftware: if I copy a version of AutoCAD that my previous employer bought and sell it to another company, or even just use it for my current employer without showing it to anyone else, I am violating the copyright on that software, and I am liable. Even though obviously no "publishing" happened.
Similarly, if you hire a decorator to paint Mickey Mouse on the inside walls of your private kindergarten, the decorator is violating Disney's copyright just as much as you are, even if neither of you has made that public.
Your previous employer never bought AutoCAD, they licenced its use, paying a subscription. When you start working for them that licence was no longer available to you. So you would be unable to subsequently use it.
Unable legally, but I may find illegal ways. And the reason it is illegal to copy is copyright at the end. The license is only (legally) required because of copyright.
No, you'd both be liable. You are not allowed to create copies of a copyrighted work, even from memory, for any commercial purpose. Making it public or not is irrelevant.
This is more obvious with spftware: if I copy a version of AutoCAD that my previous employer bought and sell it to another company, or even just use it for my current employer without showing it to anyone else, I am violating the copyright on that software, and I am liable. Even though obviously no "publishing" happened.
Similarly, if you hire a decorator to paint Mickey Mouse on the inside walls of your private kindergarten, the decorator is violating Disney's copyright just as much as you are, even if neither of you has made that public.