OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply however are mainly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a design that's now nearly as good.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather guaranteeing what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI postured this question to experts in technology 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 hard time showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses 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 said.

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

"There's a big question in intellectual home law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded facts," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "reasonable use" 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 said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is fair use?'"

There might 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 design into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite difficult circumstance with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning fair usage," he included.

A breach-of-contract suit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it includes its own set of issues, stated 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 model.

"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,' however that you took advantage of my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that a lot of claims be solved through arbitration, not suits. There's an for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, however, professionals said.

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Terms of 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 developer has actually tried to enforce these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it says.

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, demo.qkseo.in OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would also interfere with regular clients."

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

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

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