OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may apply but are largely unenforceable, they say.
Today, 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 quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said 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 might have inappropriately distilled our models."

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

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

BI positioned this question to experts in technology law, who said difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time showing a copyright or copyright claim, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr these attorneys said.

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

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

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

"There's a big concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and gdprhub.eu claim that its outputs are secured?

That's unlikely, wiki.rrtn.org the attorneys said.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that might come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable use?'"

There might be a difference in 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 stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it features 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 established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a completing AI design.

"So perhaps that's the lawsuit you may 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 contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that the majority of claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You should understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence 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 design developer has actually tried to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it states.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told 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 contracts not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, filled process," Kortz included.

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

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also interfere with normal consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a request for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's called distillation, to attempt to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, macphersonwiki.mywikis.wiki an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.