OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may apply however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual home 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 business plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI positioned this question to professionals in technology law, who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight for 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, akropolistravel.com these attorneys stated.

"The question 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 because it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he stated.

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

"There's a substantial concern in intellectual residential or commercial property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable facts," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's not likely, the lawyers stated.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short 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, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it features its own set of problems, 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 using their material as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, specialists said.

"You need to understand that the dazzling 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 Expert System 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 in fact tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and yogaasanas.science because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it states.

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and 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 come 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 private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have used technical steps to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with typical clients."

He included: "I don't believe 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 demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.