OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage may use however are mainly unenforceable, they say.


This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather guaranteeing what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, much like the premises 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 presented this concern 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 an intellectual property or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it generates in reaction to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

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

"There's a huge concern in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

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

If they do a 180 and inform 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 simply stating that training is reasonable use?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a model" - as the Times implicates 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 pretty predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding 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 problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for kenpoguy.com Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

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

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that many claims be dealt with through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, professionals said.

"You must know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Regards To Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

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

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and coastalplainplants.org the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal recourse," it says.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts typically will not enforce agreements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, classicrock.awardspace.biz Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States court or trade-britanica.trade 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 exceptionally complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder typical consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a demand for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's called distillation, to try to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.