OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and parentingliteracy.com the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, vetlek.ru on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, much like the grounds 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 question to experts in technology law, who stated challenging 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 legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it generates in response 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 stated.

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

"There's a big concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are always unprotected realities," he added.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a design" - as the Times accuses 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 quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable use," he added.

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it includes its own set of problems, higgledy-piggledy.xyz 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 using their material as training fodder for a competing AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority 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 violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, though, specialists said.

"You should understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design creator has actually attempted to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since model outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited recourse," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts typically won't enforce agreements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from an US court or engel-und-waisen.de 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 extremely complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, fraught procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical steps to block repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder regular consumers."

He added: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

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

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