Your question definitely has an interesting underlying curiosity, but I don't understand the exact question. I try to explore them here.
If the question is:
- Can I compile a program on my side to workaround all author's copyrights?
The answer is: Nice try. Not as default.
Compiling a software is not a creative action. You may have some authorship rights on some creative compiling customizations, but you can't just "steal" all the copyrights by simply compiling it by yourself.
In short, the license of your compilation should be assumed as the same of the source code itself and vice-versa, without any other clarification.
Nice try anyway.
By saying this, it is possible that the author is telling you weird things like "you can do whatever you want but only if you recompile it by yourself and if you remove my logos and my names etc." or other weird conditions involving compilation. Almost only in that case, yes, by compiling it you have different rights. Otherwise, no.
If the question is:
- If I'm the author of an image made with GIMP (which is under the GNU General Public License, so it's FLOSS software) are these images mine? or they belong to GIMP, under GNU GPL?
The answer is: Nice question. Normally your creative product is just yours.
If you use whatever tool to create an indipendent and original and creative stuff, you are almost surely the copyright holder of that output and so you decide the license, not GIMP or Photoshop authors. But the author can surely create particularly precise conditions to deny you this kind of use of the tool (for example saying: the final user cannot use my software if it wants to generate images for this list of uses ...). That's a limitation on the software itself, causing limitations on the output.
See also the GNU Affero General Public License which is interesting for this. In practice, if you visit a site whose server is under the GNU AGPL, just reaching "its output" (the HTML) triggers the license of the software. So, if you have made modifications to, let's say Mastodon, even if you hide your software on your servers, however, visitors must have all the rights you have, so you have to give the source code of your Mastodon modifications etc. Anyway, also in this case, the license does not affect the contents themselves.
The author of the content decides its license.
My answers are valid for all the licenses you cited, but modifications to the question and on this answer are appreciated.