OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may apply however are mainly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

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

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

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

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

BI postured this question to specialists in technology law, who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight for cadizpedia.wikanda.es OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time showing an intellectual property or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

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

That's since it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are necessarily unprotected realities," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may come back to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is reasonable usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts 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 done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it features its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology 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 completing AI model.

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

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service need that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

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

"You ought to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 bbarlock.com 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 most likely for great factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal recourse," it says.

"I think they are 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 contend in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between parties in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz said.

Even if 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 extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, laden process," Kortz added.

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

"They might have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt regular customers."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed declaration.