OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might use but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and cheaply train a design that's now nearly as great.

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, rather guaranteeing what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

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

BI postured this question to experts in innovation law, who stated tough 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, setiathome.berkeley.edu these lawyers stated.

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

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

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

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

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are protected?

That's not likely, the lawyers said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "fair 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 stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair usage?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it comes with 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you benefited from my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."

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

There's a bigger drawback, though, specialists stated.

"You should understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to 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 creator has actually tried to impose 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 questionable," it includes. That remains in part because model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal recourse," it says.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally will not impose arrangements not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits in between in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a judgment from a United States court or securityholes.science arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money 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 mercy of another extremely complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical steps to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would also hinder normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to duplicate advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.