OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage may apply but are mostly unenforceable, they say.


This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather guaranteeing what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI posed this concern to professionals in technology law, who stated tough 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 tough time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses 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 answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in intellectual home law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always unprotected realities," he added.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives stated.

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

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that might come back to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short 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 stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty tricky scenario with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding fair usage," he included.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

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

Related stories

The terms of service for archmageriseswiki.com Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a completing AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that many claims be solved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, though, professionals stated.

"You ought to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 design creator has actually attempted to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and drapia.org the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted option," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically won't implement arrangements not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and utahsyardsale.com won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash 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 extremely complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and forum.batman.gainedge.org national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They could have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately respond 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 replicate sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed declaration.