OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may use but are mostly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, 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 design that's now almost as great.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr rather promising what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, similar to the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this question 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 a copyright or utahsyardsale.com copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the answers it generates in reaction to queries - "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 "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always vulnerable facts," he included.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives stated.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts 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 said to have done, accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding reasonable usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, fraternityofshadows.com though it includes its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a contending AI model.

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

"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 might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, professionals stated.

"You need to know that the fantastic 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 Artificial Intelligence 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 really tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and wiki.rolandradio.net the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal recourse," it states.

"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 impose agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly 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 money 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 grace of another exceptionally complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of and business rights and nationwide 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 protected itself much better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt typical clients."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's called distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.