OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may apply however are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin 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 cheaply train a design that's now practically as excellent.

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, rather promising 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 content" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to professionals in technology law, who stated tough 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 proving a copyright or wiki.dulovic.tech copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the it produces in response to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he stated.

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, but realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, links.gtanet.com.br said.

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

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts 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 actually done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it comes with its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

"So maybe that's the lawsuit you may potentially 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 model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

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

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

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no design developer has actually attempted to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains 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 limited recourse," it states.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically will not impose arrangements not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another exceptionally complex area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, filled process," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise hinder typical consumers."

He added: "I do not think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the browsing of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to replicate advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, oke.zone told BI in an emailed statement.