OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.

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

- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply however are largely unenforceable, they say.


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

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that's now nearly as great.

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

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

BI posed this question to specialists in innovation law, who said challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it generates in action to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, but realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a huge question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he included.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers said.

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 security.

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

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

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

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding reasonable 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 features its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

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

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be fixed through arbitration, online-learning-initiative.org not lawsuits. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property violation or misappropriation."

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

"You must understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 developer has actually tried to implement 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's in part because model outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal option," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts generally will not impose arrangements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and wiki.tld-wars.space enforcement systems, historydb.date are constantly challenging, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical procedures to block repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder regular clients."

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

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

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