OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might use however are mainly unenforceable, classifieds.ocala-news.com they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and cheaply train a design that's now almost as good.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying 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" premises, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to professionals in innovation 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 tough time showing an intellectual property or copyright claim, these attorneys 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 due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a huge concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may come back to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable usage?'"

There might be a distinction in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, coastalplainplants.org Kortz added.

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with 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 utilizing their material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

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

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You should understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing 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 forum.kepri.bawaslu.go.id Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has really attempted to enforce these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal option," 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 due to the fact that courts generally will not implement contracts not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits between celebrations in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, larsaluarna.se are constantly tricky, Kortz stated.

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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

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

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's called distillation, to attempt to reproduce innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.