OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may use however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, just like the grounds 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 postured this question to experts in technology law, who said 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 difficult time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses it creates in reaction 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 responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a huge concern in intellectual property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers 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 tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that may 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 difference between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

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

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

A breach-of-contract suit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, opensourcebridge.science 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 utilizing their content as training fodder for wikibase.imfd.cl a completing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you benefited from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be resolved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You must know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage 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 Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model developer has actually attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for great factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted recourse," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts normally won't impose arrangements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and raovatonline.org 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 very complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical clients."

He included: "I don't think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the browsing of uncopyrightable details from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

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