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 recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might use however are mainly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this concern to experts in innovation law, koha-community.cz who said 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 proving a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

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

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

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

"There's a big concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute innovative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and claim that its outputs are secured?

That's unlikely, the lawyers said.

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

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

There might be a difference 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 stated to have actually done, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty challenging situation with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to reasonable use," he included.

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

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

Related stories

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

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

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

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service require that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, forum.pinoo.com.tr however, professionals stated.

"You need to know 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 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 tried to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

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

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts generally won't impose arrangements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits in between celebrations in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, menwiki.men are constantly tricky, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US 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 mercy of another incredibly complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, fraught procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder normal consumers."

He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public site."

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

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