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

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.

- OpenAI's regards to use might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they say.


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

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

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

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, rather promising what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI posed this concern to experts in technology law, who said 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 home or bphomesteading.com copyright claim, these lawyers said.

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

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

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

"There's a huge concern in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily unprotected facts," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives said.

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

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

There may be a difference between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"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 actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

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

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

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

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

There's a larger hitch, however, professionals stated.

"You ought to understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use 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 model creator has in fact tried to impose these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That remains in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted recourse," it states.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally will not enforce contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits between parties in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, addsub.wiki are constantly tricky, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles 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 complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself much better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also interfere with normal customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a demand for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.