OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not stating whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, just like the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to experts in technology law, who said challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

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

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but realities and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a big concern in intellectual home law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "fair use" exception to copyright defense.

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

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

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

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty tricky circumstance with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding reasonable use," he added.

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

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

Related stories

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

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you benefited from my design to do something that you were not allowed to do under our agreement."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that many claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, however, professionals said.

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

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to impose these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and oke.zone since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and oke.zone the Computer Fraud and macphersonwiki.mywikis.wiki Abuse Act "offer limited option," it states.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts generally won't impose agreements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a judgment from a United States 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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another exceptionally complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, filled process," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have secured itself much better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have used technical steps to block repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder typical consumers."

He included: "I don't think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.