OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might use but are mostly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

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

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

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

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 a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this concern to experts in technology law, wolvesbaneuo.com who said 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 difficult time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it creates in action to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

"There's a doctrine that states imaginative expression is copyrightable, however facts and ideas 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 creative expression or if they are always vulnerable facts," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys stated.

OpenAI is currently 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 tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is fair usage?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

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

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a AI model.

"So perhaps that's the claim you may possibly 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 design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that a lot of claims be solved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, however, specialists said.

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

To date, "no model developer has really tried to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and freechat.mytakeonit.org Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it states.

"I believe they are 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 since courts typically won't impose arrangements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 stated.

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

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with regular consumers."

He added: "I do not think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's called distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.