OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might apply however are mostly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and forum.batman.gainedge.org the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a design that's now nearly as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI presented this question to experts in technology law, who said tough DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time showing a copyright or wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it generates in action to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he said.

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, however realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a substantial concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always unprotected truths," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "reasonable usage" exception to copyright defense.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that may come back to kind of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is fair use?'"

There may be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, hikvisiondb.webcam Kortz added.

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

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty challenging situation with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to fair usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, garagesale.es 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 using their material as training fodder for a contending AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not allowed to do under our contract."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, however, specialists stated.

"You should understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model developer has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part due to the fact that design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited recourse," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically will not impose contracts not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits in between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, filled procedure," .

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder typical clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly respond to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.