OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, forum.pinoo.com.tr they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now practically as excellent.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, wiki.tld-wars.space called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

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

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, just like the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and annunciogratis.net other news outlets?

BI posed this concern to specialists in technology law, who said difficult 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 hard time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the responses it generates in action to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

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

"There's a substantial question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always unprotected realities," he added.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

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

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

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it features its own set of issues, said 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 material as training fodder for a contending AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not allowed to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that many claims be resolved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, however, experts stated.

"You need to know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System 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 model developer has in fact attempted to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for good factor: we think 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 due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited option," it states.

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

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

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

"So this is, a long, made complex, fraught process," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repeated access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also hinder regular consumers."

He added: "I do not think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for wiki.dulovic.tech comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to reproduce advanced U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.