OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply however are mainly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our models."

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, much like 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 positioned this concern to professionals in innovation law, 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 proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it creates in reaction 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 responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he said.

"There's a teaching that states imaginative expression is copyrightable, but facts and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a big question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are secured?

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

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

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

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

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

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable usage," 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 comes with its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

"So maybe that's the claim you might perhaps 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 allowed to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that many claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, professionals stated.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design creator has in fact tried to impose these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and bio.rogstecnologia.com.br the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited recourse," it states.

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and addsub.wiki 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They could have used technical procedures to block repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt regular clients."

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

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

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