OpenAI Has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek Tech Law Experts Say

OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.

- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.

- OpenAI's terms of usage may use but are largely unenforceable, they say.


This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.


In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as good.


The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs."


OpenAI is not stating whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, rather promising what a "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."


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


BI postured this question to specialists in technology law, who said challenging 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 difficult time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.


"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - suggesting the answers it produces in reaction 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 answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he stated.


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


"There's a big question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable truths," he included.


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


That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.


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


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


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


"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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz said.


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


A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely


A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it features its own set of issues, garagesale.es said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.


Related stories


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


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


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


There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that many claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property violation or misappropriation."


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


"You should understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of usage are likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 design developer has in fact tried to impose these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.


"This is likely for great factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.


"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally won't implement agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."


Lawsuits in between celebrations in various nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly tricky, Kortz said.


Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States court or 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 stated.


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


"So this is, a long, complicated, fraught procedure," Kortz included.


Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself much better from a distilling incursion?


"They might have utilized technical procedures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise disrupt regular customers."


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


Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a request for remark.


"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's called distillation, to try to replicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed declaration.