OpenAI and prawattasao.awardspace.info the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may use however are mostly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin 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 information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as excellent.

The Trump administration's leading 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 may have inappropriately distilled our models."

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to experts in innovation law, who stated challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight 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 lawyers said.

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

That's since it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he said.

"There's a teaching that says creative expression is copyrightable, but facts and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a big concern in intellectual property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always unprotected facts," he added.

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

That's unlikely, forum.batman.gainedge.org the lawyers stated.

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

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

There may be a distinction in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, archmageriseswiki.com Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a design" - 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 stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a competing AI design.

"So maybe that's the suit you might perhaps 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 permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, experts said.

"You must know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Regards To Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design developer has really tried to implement these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part because design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and fakenews.win the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it states.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts generally won't implement agreements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complicated location 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, made complex, fraught process," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have itself much better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder regular consumers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to reproduce innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, wiki.rrtn.org told BI in an emailed declaration.