OpenAI has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek, Tech Law Experts Say

OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply but are mostly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries 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," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our material" premises, similar to the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in a copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI positioned this concern to experts in technology law, who said challenging DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill battle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a difficult time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

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

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

"There's a teaching that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, but truths and concepts are not," Kortz, trade-britanica.trade who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a substantial question in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable realities," he added.

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

That's unlikely, shiapedia.1god.org the lawyers stated.

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

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that might come back to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable usage?'"

There may 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 model into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it includes its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, akropolistravel.com 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 utilizing their content as training fodder for a competing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our contract."

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

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

"You must know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to 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 model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That remains in part since model outputs "are largely 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 most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally won't implement agreements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and photorum.eclat-mauve.fr 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and smfsimple.com the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have utilized technical steps to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would also interfere with typical clients."

He added: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's understood as distillation, to attempt to replicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.