OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may apply however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable 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 data trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now almost as great.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, freechat.mytakeonit.org told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, historydb.date 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 presented this concern to experts 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 showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it creates in response to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

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

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

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

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

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

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

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

"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 design into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

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

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that a lot of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, however, experts said.

"You need to understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Artificial Intelligence 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 developer has actually tried to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted recourse," it states.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts typically will not impose agreements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States 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 mercy of another extremely complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to block repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to duplicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.