OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use but are mostly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs."

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

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

BI presented this question to specialists in innovation law, who said tough 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 lawyers stated.

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

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he stated.

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

"There's a substantial question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys stated.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts 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 pretty predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to reasonable use," he added.

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

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

Related stories

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

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you gained from my model to do something that you were not allowed to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and . OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, though, professionals stated.

"You ought to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design developer has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part since design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it says.

"I think 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 usually will not enforce contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

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

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 incredibly complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly respond to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's called distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.