OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might apply however are mostly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and cheaply train a design that's now nearly as excellent.

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

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, 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 concern to professionals 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 legal representatives said.

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

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

"There's a doctrine that states imaginative expression is copyrightable, but truths 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 creative expression or if they are necessarily unprotected realities," he included.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "reasonable use" exception to copyright protection.

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

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with 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 established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a contending AI design.

"So perhaps that's the lawsuit you may potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property violation or misappropriation."

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

"You ought to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Terms of 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 actually attempted to impose these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and forum.altaycoins.com due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it states.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally will not impose arrangements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always challenging, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash 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 grace of another incredibly complex 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 safeguarded itself much better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt typical consumers."

He included: "I do not think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed declaration.