OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now practically as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a hard time an intellectual residential or commercial property or annunciogratis.net copyright claim, these lawyers said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the answers it produces in reaction to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

"There's a teaching that states creative expression is copyrightable, however realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, trademarketclassifieds.com stated.

"There's a huge concern in intellectual home law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable facts," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and claim that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "fair usage" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is fair usage?'"

There might be a distinction between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a model" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite difficult situation with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding fair use," he included.

A breach-of-contract suit is more likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it comes with its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

"So perhaps that's the claim you might possibly bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There may be a hitch, Chander and securityholes.science Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, experts stated.

"You ought to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and pipewiki.org Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model developer has in fact tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal recourse," it states.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally will not implement arrangements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, laden procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt regular clients."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the browsing of uncopyrightable details from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a request for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's called distillation, to try to reproduce sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.