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

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

- OpenAI's terms of use may use but are largely unenforceable, they say.


Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property 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 promising what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our material" premises, just like the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this concern to specialists in innovation law, who stated tough 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 proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the answers it produces in reaction to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

"There's a teaching that states innovative expression is copyrightable, however realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always unguarded facts," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys said.

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

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

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 accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to reasonable usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, rocksoff.org 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 competing AI model.

"So maybe that's the claim you may 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 model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, cadizpedia.wikanda.es 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 describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Regards To Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no design creator has in fact attempted to impose these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal recourse," it says.

"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 compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, 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 boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another exceptionally complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical steps to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder regular customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away respond to an ask for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to replicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.