OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage might use but are largely unenforceable, they say.


This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now nearly as good.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, told 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 spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

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

BI posed this question to professionals in innovation 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 showing a copyright or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

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

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he said.

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

"There's a substantial question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are always unguarded facts," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

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

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that might return to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable usage?'"

There may be a difference in 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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of problems, 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 utilizing their material as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you benefited from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that many claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

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

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to 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 developer has actually tried to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great reason: we believe 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 restricted option," it says.

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and classihub.in won a judgment from a United States court or 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 grace of another exceptionally complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have utilized technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's understood as distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.