OpenAI and wiki-tb-service.com the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use however are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, just like 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 concern to experts in technology 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 showing a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses it creates in reaction to inquiries - "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 stated.

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

"There's a big concern in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up imaginative expression or if they are always unguarded facts," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys stated.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that might come back to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating 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 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 stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, 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 established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a completing AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however 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 need that a lot of claims be solved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, though, professionals stated.

"You need to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most 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 of Princeton University's Center for Infotech 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 excellent factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted option," it says.

"I think 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 usually won't implement agreements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, wiki.snooze-hotelsoftware.de are always challenging, Kortz said.

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 money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

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

"So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt typical consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's understood as distillation, to try to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.