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 apply however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual home 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, rather assuring what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

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

BI positioned this concern to professionals in innovation 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 difficult time proving an intellectual property or copyright claim, archmageriseswiki.com these attorneys said.

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

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

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

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

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are secured?

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case that training AI is an allowable "reasonable use" exception to copyright protection.

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

There might be a distinction 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 design into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have done, yewiki.org Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology 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 model.

"So maybe that's the claim you may perhaps 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 allowed to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that many claims be dealt with through arbitration, forum.altaycoins.com not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You should understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are 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 design developer has really tried to implement these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted 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 usually will not enforce arrangements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US court or wikibase.imfd.cl 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 exceptionally complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt normal consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to reproduce sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, morphomics.science an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.