OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.

- OpenAI's regards to usage might use but are mainly unenforceable, they state.


This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, similar to the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI positioned this question to experts in innovation law, who stated tough 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 hard time showing an intellectual property or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

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

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but truths and ideas 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 make up creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded realities," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "reasonable use" exception to copyright defense.

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles 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 stated to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it features its own set of issues, said 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 material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my model to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that most claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You must know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to 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 model developer has actually attempted to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for great reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part since design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted recourse," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally will not impose contracts not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and won a judgment from an US court or scientific-programs.science arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash 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 incredibly complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself much better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt typical clients."

He added: "I do not think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable details from a public site."

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

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