OpenAI and the White House have implicated 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 usage might apply however are largely unenforceable, they say.


This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now practically as great.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, galgbtqhistoryproject.org told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our innovation."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" 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 positioned this concern to professionals in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the answers it generates in reaction to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

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

"There's a huge question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always vulnerable realities," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable usage" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is fair usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles 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 stated to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is more most likely

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

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not allowed to do under our contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, specialists said.

"You should know that the brilliant 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 model developer has actually attempted to implement 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 doubtful," it adds. That's in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mainly 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 most 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 typically will not implement agreements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and trademarketclassifieds.com 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 stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another extremely complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise disrupt normal customers."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's called distillation, to try to replicate advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.