OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may 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 declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting information trove to and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as good.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, bio.rogstecnologia.com.br told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued 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 innovation law, who stated tough 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 difficult time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

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

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

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

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

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable use" exception to copyright security.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair use?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a design" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model 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 regarding reasonable use," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

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

Related stories

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

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not claims. 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 hitch, though, experts said.

"You need to understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are 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 design developer has really attempted to implement these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted recourse," it states.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts usually won't enforce arrangements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

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 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 exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

"They could have used technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt normal customers."

He added: "I don't think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.