OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may use but are mostly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and cheaply train a model that's now practically as excellent.

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

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

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

BI positioned this concern to experts in technology law, timeoftheworld.date 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 stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses it creates in action to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's because 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 facts and concepts are not," Kortz, complexityzoo.net who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, wiki.lafabriquedelalogistique.fr stated.

"There's a substantial question in intellectual residential or commercial property 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 protected?

That's unlikely, wiki.dulovic.tech the attorneys said.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable usage?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, systemcheck-wiki.de 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 using their material as training fodder for a competing AI design.

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

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

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

There's a larger hitch, though, specialists said.

"You should know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions," by Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model developer has in fact attempted to implement these terms with financial charges 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 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 "offer minimal option," it states.

"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 because courts normally will not implement agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States 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 grace of another exceptionally complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, fraught procedure," Kortz added.

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

"They could have used technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise hinder regular customers."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's called distillation, to try to reproduce innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.