OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use but are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that's now nearly as good.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our content" premises, just like the premises 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 positioned this question to specialists in innovation law, who stated 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 showing a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it creates in action to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but realities and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

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

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and claim that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city 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 might come back to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair use?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it includes 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 using their content as training fodder for a competing AI model.

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

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, however, professionals stated.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to 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 Infotech 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 excellent factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part because design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it says.

"I believe 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 usually won't impose contracts not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in different nations, each with its own legal and thatswhathappened.wiki enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a from an US court or 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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They could have utilized technical measures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt normal clients."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public website."

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

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