OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may apply however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated 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 almost as great.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training procedure, 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 plans to pursue legal action, instead promising what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

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

BI posed this concern to specialists in innovation law, who stated 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 proving an intellectual home or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it creates in response to questions - "are copyrightable at all," of Harvard Law School stated.

That's since it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he said.

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

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

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys said.

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

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that might return to kind of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair use?'"

There may be a difference in 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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim 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 regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

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

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, though, professionals said.

"You ought to understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model creator has actually attempted to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mostly 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 think 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 since courts typically will not enforce arrangements not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties 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 stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another very complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and morphomics.science the balancing of specific and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal clients."

He added: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away respond to a demand for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's called distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.