OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and cheaply 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 residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our designs."

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

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

BI postured this question to specialists in technology law, who said tough 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 showing an intellectual home or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it creates in action to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's because it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a substantial question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded 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 may return to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable usage?'"

There might be a difference 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 model," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it features its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, photorum.eclat-mauve.fr who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to 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 might potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."

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

There's a larger drawback, however, specialists stated.

"You need to understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Regards To Use Restrictions," by Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

To date, "no design creator has in fact tried to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

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

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

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over cash 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 extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

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

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand pipewiki.org for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's understood as distillation, to try to reproduce sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.