OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may use however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as great.

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

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our material" premises, much like the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to specialists in innovation law, who stated 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 difficult time showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses it produces in action 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 certify as "creativity," he said.

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

"There's a substantial concern in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded realities," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the lawyers said.

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

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

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 model" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, visualchemy.gallery though it includes its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, 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 utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI design.

"So perhaps that's the suit 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 drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that most claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, specialists said.

"You ought to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to 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 .

To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to impose these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and archmageriseswiki.com Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts generally will not implement agreements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles 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 boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another extremely complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

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

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly respond to a demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's called distillation, to try to replicate advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.