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

OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and cheaply train a design that's now nearly as excellent.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual home theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not stating whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to specialists in innovation law, who stated 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 hard time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the answers it produces in action to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

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

"There's a huge question 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 anyway and declare that its outputs are protected?

That's unlikely, parentingliteracy.com the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "reasonable use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that might return to kind of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is fair use?'"

There may be a distinction in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts into a design" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz said.

"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite tricky scenario with regard to the line it's been toeing regarding fair usage," he added.

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, wiki.monnaie-libre.fr though it includes its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

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

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You should understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Infotech Policy.

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

"This is most likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and it-viking.ch because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it says.

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

Lawsuits in between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and systems, are constantly tricky, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from an US court or library.kemu.ac.ke 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 stated.

Here, surgiteams.com OpenAI would be at the mercy of another very complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have used technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with typical consumers."

He included: "I don't think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the browsing of uncopyrightable info from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's known as distillation, to try to reproduce advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.