OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may use but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated 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 information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now practically as excellent.

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

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

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

BI postured this question to professionals in technology law, who said difficult 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 tough time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or bphomesteading.com copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses it creates in response to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

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

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

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair usage" exception to copyright security.

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a model" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, coastalplainplants.org though it includes its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, 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 content as training fodder for a competing AI design.

"So maybe that's the lawsuit you might potentially 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 contract."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that many claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, experts stated.

"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 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 model creator has in fact attempted to enforce 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 design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and wiki.dulovic.tech due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted recourse," it says.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally will not implement arrangements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

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 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 complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt typical consumers."

He added: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public website."

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to replicate advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.