GitLab

OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and 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 questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly 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 copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, rather assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, 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 question to experts in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 difficult time proving an intellectual property or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses it generates in response to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, but facts and ideas are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

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

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives 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 defense.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that may come back to type of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is reasonable use?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with its own set of issues, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for utahsyardsale.com a completing AI design.

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

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service require that the majority of claims be through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property violation or misappropriation."

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

"You should know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was describing 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no design developer has really attempted to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer limited option," it says.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically won't enforce agreements not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits in between parties in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, Kortz stated.

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 said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, filled procedure," Kortz added.

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

"They could have utilized technical steps to block repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt typical clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a request for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to use approaches, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.