OpenAI and the White House have actually of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage may apply but are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, 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 questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that's now practically as good.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, 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 company plans to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a representative described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr similar to 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 presented this question to professionals in technology law, e.bike.free.fr 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 copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it creates in action 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 responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a huge question in intellectual home law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up imaginative expression or if they are always unprotected truths," he included.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable usage" exception to copyright defense.

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

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

"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 model," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

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

There's a bigger hitch, however, specialists stated.

"You need to know 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 Information Technology Policy.

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

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal recourse," it states.

"I believe they are 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 since courts normally will not implement contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly tricky, Kortz said.

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, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

"They could have utilized technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt typical customers."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, ai-db.science informed BI in an emailed statement.