OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might apply however are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

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

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

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

BI postured this question to experts in technology law, who said challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle 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 lawyers said.

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

That's because it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and declare 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 an allowable "reasonable usage" exception to copyright protection.

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 said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair use?'"

There may be a distinction 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 design into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, surgiteams.com though it features its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, wavedream.wiki 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 model.

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

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, though, experts stated.

"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 Regards To Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part since design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited recourse," it states.

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States court or 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 stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly complicated area 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, fraught procedure," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with regular customers."

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

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's called distillation, to attempt to reproduce sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.