OpenAI and the White House have actually accused 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 may use however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.
In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a model that's now practically as great.
The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our models."
OpenAI is not stating whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead promising what a representative described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."
But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, similar to the premises OpenAI was itself sued on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?
BI presented this concern to experts in technology law, who said challenging 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 proving an intellectual home or copyright claim, wiki.philo.at these lawyers stated.
"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it generates in response to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.
That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the responses ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he stated.
"There's a teaching that states imaginative expression is copyrightable, but truths and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.
"There's a big question in intellectual residential or commercial property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are necessarily unprotected realities," he included.
Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and claim that its outputs are secured?
That's unlikely, hikvisiondb.webcam the attorneys stated.
OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair usage" exception to copyright defense.
If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that might come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable usage?'"
There might be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz added.
"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a design" - 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 done, Kortz said.
"But this still puts OpenAI in a pretty tricky circumstance with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to fair usage," he added.
A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely
A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it features 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 established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a competing AI model.
"So perhaps that's the lawsuit you might potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.
"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you took advantage of my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."
There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that a lot of claims be resolved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."
There's a larger hitch, however, professionals stated.
"You must know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to 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 model developer has really tried to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.
"This is likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted option," it states.
"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually will not impose agreements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."
Lawsuits between parties in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always challenging, Kortz stated.
Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.
Here, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.
"So this is, a long, complicated, stuffed procedure," Kortz included.
Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?
"They could have utilized technical measures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "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 info from a public site."
Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for comment.
"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's known as distillation, to attempt to reproduce innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.
