OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and morphomics.science the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that's now almost as good.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, 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 plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

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

BI postured this concern to experts in innovation law, setiathome.berkeley.edu 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 tough time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

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

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

"There's a teaching that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, however realities and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

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

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

That's not likely, the attorneys stated.

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

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

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, stated 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 using their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my model to do something that you were not allowed to do under our contract."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, though, specialists said.

"You must understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are most 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model creator has really attempted to impose these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal minimal recourse," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally won't implement contracts not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly tricky, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from an US court or dokuwiki.stream 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 mercy of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself much better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder typical clients."

He included: "I don't believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a request for complexityzoo.net remark.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's understood as distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.