GitLab

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

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, much like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and wiki.rrtn.org other news outlets?

BI positioned 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 difficult time proving an intellectual home or wiki-tb-service.com copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it generates in reaction to questions - "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 qualify as "creativity," he said.

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

"There's a big concern in intellectual property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable facts," he added.

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 allowed "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable 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 usage?'"

There might be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz included.

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

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite challenging situation with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to fair usage," he included.

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it features its own set of issues, 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 using their content as training fodder for a contending AI model.

"So perhaps that's the claim you might perhaps 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 permitted to do under our contract."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that many claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, oke.zone though, experts stated.

"You must know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design creator has really tried to impose these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.

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

Lawsuits between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always challenging, 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 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 mercy of another extremely complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical procedures to block repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise disrupt typical clients."

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

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

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