OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using 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 use may apply but are largely unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading 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 wrongly distilled our models."

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our material" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to experts in technology law, who stated tough DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

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

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a huge concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "fair usage" exception to copyright defense.

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 fair usage?'"

There may be a difference 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 model into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it features its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

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

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, specialists stated.

"You ought to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and clashofcryptos.trade the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it says.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually will not impose agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

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

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

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

"They might have utilized technical measures to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise hinder normal clients."

He included: "I don't believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

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

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