OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may apply however are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

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

BI positioned this concern to specialists in technology law, who said challenging 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 showing an or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

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

That's because it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he added.

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

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 a permitted "fair usage" exception to copyright protection.

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

There might be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short 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 stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it includes its own set of issues, said 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 content as training fodder for akropolistravel.com a completing AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. 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 intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You need to understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design developer has in fact tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part since 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 minimal option," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts usually won't implement contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles 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 stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends 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 incursion?

"They might have used technical steps to block repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt normal consumers."

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

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 understood as distillation, to attempt to replicate sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.