If the claimed_model is trained from scratch, the new model will have 0 capability (basically generate gibberish words or noise). If it is a derivative of the suspected model, it will do something sensible.
It is a bit more interesting for diffusion model because you can fine-tune to a different objective, making this investigation harder to do, but not impossible.
Additionally, certain prompts will produce nonsensical but specific outputs known only to BFL.
I'm actually all for open training but I think it's only fair you treat the model as your treated the life's work of others.
Model weights are not copyrightable creative works, no matter how much various companies wish they were.
At least they're not copyrightable until either legislatures extend the list of what's copyrightable, or courts have definitively show their willingness to reinterpret the words in the existing definitions far outside of their established legal meanings, their established meanings in common speech, and/or any sane analogy to those established meanings.
Yes, I am aware that collections and databases are copyrightable. Models don't have the elements required for a copyrightable collection or database. I'm also aware that software is copyrightable. Models don't have the elements required for copyrightable software. They just flat out aren't works of authorship in any way. How much effort goes into creating them is irrelevant; that's not part of what defines a copyrightable work.