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

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under intellectual home and agreement law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage might use however are mostly unenforceable, they state.


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

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a design that's now practically as great.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, nerdgaming.science meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

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

BI postured this concern to specialists 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 proving an intellectual property or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The question 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 answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a substantial concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always unprotected truths," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "reasonable usage" exception to copyright protection.

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a model" - 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, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty difficult circumstance with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it features its own set of issues, 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 using their material as training fodder for a completing AI design.

"So perhaps 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 design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

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

There's a larger drawback, however, experts said.

"You need to know that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no design developer has actually tried to impose 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 adds. That remains in part since design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited recourse," it states.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts typically will not enforce agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and 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 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 individual and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, fraught procedure," Kortz added.

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

"They might have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also disrupt typical customers."

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

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

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.