OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may apply however are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a design that's now almost as excellent.

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

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

BI postured this to professionals in innovation law, who stated 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 an intellectual property or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

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

That's since it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he stated.

"There's a teaching that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, but facts and ideas are not," Kortz, visualchemy.gallery 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 constitute innovative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and disgaeawiki.info claim that its outputs are protected?

That's unlikely, the lawyers said.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a model" - 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 actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit 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 regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

"So possibly 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 benefited from my model to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that the majority of claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, though, specialists said.

"You must know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 Information Technology Policy.

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

"This is likely for good factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part since model 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 informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally won't impose arrangements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

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 cash 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 complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise hinder normal clients."

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

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

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