OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated 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 practically as excellent.

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

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

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

BI posed this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated difficult DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

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

That's because it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "imagination," he said.

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

"There's a huge question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are protected?

That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair usage" exception to copyright security.

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

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

"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 stated to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based claim, utahsyardsale.com though it includes its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at .

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 it-viking.ch a contending AI model.

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

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and pipewiki.org Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that a lot of claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, though, professionals stated.

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

"This is most likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That's in part due to the fact that design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted 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 since courts generally will not impose arrangements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, 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 cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have used technical steps to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal consumers."

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

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

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