OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, historydb.date OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead promising what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" premises, just like the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed 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 battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time showing an intellectual home or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

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

"There's a teaching that states innovative expression is copyrightable, however truths and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a substantial concern in intellectual home law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable realities," he included.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers stated.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a design" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

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

Related stories

The regards to service for 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 claim you might perhaps bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, however, specialists said.

"You need to understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 really attempted to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer 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 generally will not implement contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between parties in various 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 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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have utilized technical measures to block repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder normal customers."

He included: "I don't think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away respond to a request for annunciogratis.net comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's understood as distillation, to try to reproduce innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.