OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may use however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

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

OpenAI is not stating whether the business plans to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

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

BI posed this concern to professionals in innovation law, who stated 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 tough time proving an intellectual home or copyright claim, these said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the responses it creates in reaction to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he said.

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

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

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

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that might return to sort of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair use?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

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

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for classifieds.ocala-news.com a contending AI design.

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

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, however, experts said.

"You must understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System 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 model creator has really tried to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and opensourcebridge.science due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and iwatex.com the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually won't implement agreements not to contend in the lack 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 stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and 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 boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed process," Kortz added.

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

"They could have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal customers."

He included: "I don't think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a request for remark.

"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, told BI in an emailed declaration.