Blog post by Signe Krantz
There will have been a before and an after the Summer Course on International Copyright Law & Policy 2026 at the University of Amsterdam. As policy officer at Wikimedia Sverige (WMSE), the Swedish Wikimedia chapter, and KR21 national co-coordinator for Sweden, I handle a lot of policy concerning intellectual property rights. Most of which, to be honest, I have not fully understood during the six months I’ve worked at WMSE. Who knew international copyright was complicated? (Everyone, me included.)
That confusion has lessened somewhat, thanks to superb lecturers and classmates at the Summer Course. I can now, somewhat, probably, explain the conflicting views on copyright and AI or why it’s a bad idea to layer the three step test on top of itself several times.
But mostly, I think I will have a much easier time connecting our policy goals with specific laws, regulations, and limitations and exceptions, being specific and policy oriented, not simply general and ideological.
However, copyright know-how will not by itself pave the way for the change necessary for an inclusive society based on open knowledge. There has to be a story. Indeed, it was these that came out most strongly for me during the Summer Course, helping to explain what lies beneath many of the arguments being made. This article shares what I learned.
Two Stories Already in Play
Stories are powerful. Facts and arguments might sway individuals, policymakers, or attendees at a conference. But stories sway societies. The entire world is trying, right now, to formulate stories to understand generative AI and the new internet, and how we should approach them, not least when it comes to copyright law.
That copyright is relevant is clear. Large language models (LLMs) are a powerful and fascinating technology, although with many risks and flaws, that can only exist thanks to a mind-boggling quantity of material. Material that is, more often than not, copyright-protected.
The two apparent main players in this discussion already have their narratives in place. The story of the tech industry is one of innovation, an Emerald City future, and competitive advantage, seductive to anyone enthusiastic about technology, industry, or economics. On the other hand, the story of publishers, creators, and CMOs is one of the human soul and the right to your dearest creations. Their arguments focus on stolen works, distorted creativity, and the starving artist losing out on opportunities to AI-generated slop.
But big tech and big copyright are not the only players here. We are also! So what, exactly, is our story then? Do we even have a common one?
The Compromise Nobody Asked For
Despite the apparent opposition in their arguments, the tech industry and publishers are already well on their way to work out a compromise to the big AI questions: licensing deals. For them, it’s an elegant, although not unproblematic, solution. Tech companies get their materials and some public goodwill with a little fuss and probably a big cheque. Publishers and collective management organisations (CMOs) get their remunerations and legal solution, to the grumblings of some artists and creators, as their works are being put in LLMs.
This also makes policymakers happy. Self-regulation means they don’t have to open the Pandora’s box that is copyright legislation.
A new norm of default licensing for new uses is, however, bad news for researchers, libraries, open source projects, and the like. Stuck in the middle, we are on one hand aligned with the tech industry on many exceptions and limitations, but are, unlike them, completely dependent on them – we cannot just buy ourselves out of trouble. On the other hand, we are wary about the risks of AI slop and the growing domination of tech corporations. Much like publishers.
The Challenge Of Crafting a Good Story
Unlike either of these two camps, to repeat my main point, we lack a coherent story that can illustrate the goals of the open knowledge movement. If there even is one that combines the interests of researchers, libraries, museums, and online encyclopedias.
A good story should have at least a few of the following: a hero, a villain, a victim, a conflict, a vision, and/or a solution. Clearly, caricatures and simplistic role assignments rarely reflect the complexity of real life, and they have to be based in facts and sincerely held values. With that said, they’re useful for testing whether a story has legs. Let’s try a few out:
- Big Tech (villain) is taking your (victim) data, manipulating you through their algorithms, and deciding what is and what is not allowed (conflict), so we need open source projects (heroes) to save what’s good with the internet (vision).
- AI needs vast libraries of works for its training, which libraries, archives, and encyclopedias (victims) have provided thanklessly. However, many AI users don’t know that much of the data comes from public institutions (conflict). Therefore, we need AI companies to attribute sources and politicians to safeguard their continued existence (solution), lest we lose institutions we take for granted.
- Tech companies and big publishers (villains) are solving copyright issues with licensing deals. However, if that becomes a new norm (conflict), it will exclude anyone without the funds of big corporations or the vast volumes of content held by publishers, such as libraries, universities, and researchers (victims).
- For millennia, libraries (heroes) have allowed people to share in humanity’s collected knowledge. But politicians (villains) have systematically underfunded them and implemented copyright laws that put libraries under constant pressure and scrutiny. However, with the right reforms (solution), libraries can keep putting human knowledge first.
The Need To Build Our Own Meaningful Stories
None of these capture the breadth of the interests of the open knowledge movement or the complex technical reforms needed, nor are they particularly good or polished. But they might pique the interest of an uninitiated person, who might then keep listening to find out more about the needed policy changes. That person might then retell the story in their organisation, party, university, or company, who might then keep open knowledge in mind.
Through stories, we can build a wider understanding that when policy-makers are legislating for AI – or indeed anything around copyright, there are other interests at stake than those of big tech or big copyright.
For me, the seeds of those stories have taken root in Amsterdam.
Pictures by Signe Krantz and IViR
24 July 2026
