"The spectrum of engagement with models clearly challenges the copyright system. A system, in this Kat’s view, which, until recently, was oriented around individual acts of copying, with platforms cast as new points of interference to bridge technological enforcement gaps. However, UGC occurring on AI model marketplaces demands a shift in rhetoric and approach. Their ability to redistribute creative agency and control over the tools of cultural production should prompt us to reflect on how copyright law should respond to creativity that occurs through shared infrastructures.

Cases like Pelham I (IPkat here), Pelham II (IPKat here) and Mio/konektra (IPKat here) illustrate the growing tendency to view the boundaries of copyright through the lens of communication. Infringement depends on recognisable elements, for both phonograms and works of applied art, and creative-based exceptions centre upon dialogue. It could be said that the future trajectory of copyright depends on the dialogue between relevant interests, and to the extent that they do not, perhaps copyright’s individually focused boundaries should shrink. Instead, the collective value of creativity that benefits non-expressive uses (training AI models or downstream monetisation of generated AI content) should be recognised and remunerated through an area of law more suited to valuing collective expressive, namely cultural heritage."

https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2026/06/running-tintin-model-locally-on-your.html

#AI #LLMs #LocalLamas #China #Chatbots #Copyright #IP #OpenSource #OpenWeights