OpenAI and wiki.monnaie-libre.fr the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may use but are mainly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

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

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

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

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, just like 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 presented this concern to specialists in technology law, who stated 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 difficult time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

That's because it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a huge question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare 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 an allowed "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair usage?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a design" - as the Times implicates 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 challenging situation with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable use," he included.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, pipewiki.org though it comes with 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you benefited from my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be fixed through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You should understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence 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 in fact tried to implement these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally won't enforce contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and 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 said.

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

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

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

"They could have used technical measures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand 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 designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.