OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage may apply but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and genbecle.com the White House implicated DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they stated the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and sciencewiki.science hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now nearly as excellent.

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

OpenAI is not stating whether the business plans to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you took our content" grounds, much like 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 posed this concern to specialists in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 tough time showing an intellectual home or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

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

That's due to the fact that it's unclear whether the responses ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he stated.

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

"There's a huge question in intellectual residential or commercial property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed "reasonable use" exception to copyright security.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may come back to sort of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is reasonable use?'"

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news posts 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 said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes 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 content as training fodder for a contending AI model.

"So perhaps that's the lawsuit you might 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 permitted to do under our contract."

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that many claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, though, specialists said.

"You should understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI terms of use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was 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 creator has in fact attempted to impose these terms with monetary charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted recourse," it says.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts typically won't impose contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States court or library.kemu.ac.ke 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 said.

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

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have used technical steps to block repeated access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise interfere with normal customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a demand wino.org.pl for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to reproduce sophisticated U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed statement.