OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might apply however are mostly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright 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 stating whether the business plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, just 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 tough DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

"There's a teaching that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, however truths and concepts are not," Kortz, bahnreise-wiki.de who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a big concern in intellectual property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, 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 security.

If they do a 180 and pipewiki.org tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may return to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable use?'"

There may be a difference 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 actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it features its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology 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 competing AI model.

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

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

There's a bigger drawback, however, experts said.

"You should know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 model developer has actually attempted to enforce these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted 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 normally won't implement agreements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

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 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 incredibly complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

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

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask for comment.

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