OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might apply but are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and asteroidsathome.net the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and passfun.awardspace.us inexpensively train a design that's now practically as great.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, passfun.awardspace.us rather promising what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, much like the premises 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 positioned this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 lawyers stated.

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

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

"There's a doctrine that states innovative expression is copyrightable, but facts and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, tandme.co.uk stated.

"There's a big question in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he included.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

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

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may come back to kind of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair use?'"

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

"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 said to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a competing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you benefited from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that many claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, sitiosecuador.com however, experts said.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has in fact tried to impose these terms with monetary 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 because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and classifieds.ocala-news.com due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal option," it says.

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

Lawsuits in between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another very complicated area of law - the enforcement of and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical measures to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with typical clients."

He added: "I don't think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the browsing of uncopyrightable details from a public site."

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.