OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

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

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

BI positioned this question to specialists in technology law, who said challenging 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 tough time proving a copyright or antir.sca.wiki copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the answers it produces in action to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's because it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a substantial question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are always unprotected facts," he included.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives stated.

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

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

There may be a difference between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a contending AI model.

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

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that most claims be resolved 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, though, experts stated.

"You should know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model developer has really tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

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

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally will not implement arrangements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and systems, are constantly tricky, larsaluarna.se Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 incredibly complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and gratisafhalen.be the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical measures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder regular customers."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's called distillation, to attempt to replicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, classihub.in an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.