OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply but are largely unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused of something akin 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 inexpensively train a design that's now nearly as excellent.

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our material" grounds, tandme.co.uk just like the grounds OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 tough time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

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

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

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

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

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

That's not likely, sitiosecuador.com the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may return to sort of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair use?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a model" - as the Times accuses 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 quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding fair use," he included.

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it features its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation 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 competing AI model.

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

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

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

There's a larger drawback, prazskypantheon.cz though, specialists stated.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model developer has actually tried to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part because design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally won't enforce contracts not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always challenging, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles 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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complex 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 founding of the US.

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

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

"They might have used technical measures to block repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand for remark.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.