OpenAI Has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek Tech Law Experts Say

OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they say.


Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar 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 rapidly and inexpensively train a design that's now practically 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 may have inappropriately distilled our models."


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


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


BI positioned this question to experts in technology law, who said 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 tough time showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.


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


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


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


"There's a substantial concern in intellectual home law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always unprotected facts," he added.


Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and declare that its outputs are protected?


That's unlikely, wiki.asexuality.org the legal representatives 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 inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may come back to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is reasonable use?'"


There might be a difference in 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 actually done, Kortz stated.


"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning fair use," he added.


A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely


A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it includes its own set of problems, stated 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 content as training fodder for a completing AI model.


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


"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 agreement."


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


There's a larger hitch, honkaistarrail.wiki though, professionals stated.


"You need to understand that the brilliant scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 actually tried to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.


"This is most likely for good factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's 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 "offer minimal option," it says.


"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally will not impose agreements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."


Lawsuits in between parties in different nations, 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 a United States court or oke.zone arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil 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 private and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.


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


Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?


"They might have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical consumers."


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


Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand for remark.


"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use techniques, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to reproduce innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.