OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might use but are mainly 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 queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a design that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our designs."

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, just like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this concern to experts in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the answers it generates in response to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

"There's a doctrine that says creative expression is copyrightable, however truths and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a huge question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always unguarded truths," he included.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair usage?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

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

Related stories

The regards to service for wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a AI model.

"So perhaps that's the suit you may possibly 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 allowed to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."

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

"You ought to understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 design developer has actually tried to implement these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it states.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually will not implement contracts not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US court or octomo.co.uk 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 stated.

Here, oke.zone OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They could have utilized technical measures to block repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical clients."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.