OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply however are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

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

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our material" premises, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

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

OpenAI would have a tough time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses it produces in response to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's because it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he stated.

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

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded realities," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

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

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

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

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

Related stories

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

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my model to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, though, experts said.

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 in fact tried to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited option," it states.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually won't implement contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

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

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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, filled process," Kortz included.

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

"They could have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder typical consumers."

He added: "I don't believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.