OpenAI has Little Legal Recourse against DeepSeek, Tech Law Experts Say - vis

OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may apply but are mostly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White 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 information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property 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 plans to pursue legal action, rather guaranteeing what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

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

BI postured this concern to professionals in innovation law, who said challenging 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 tough time showing a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

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

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

"There's a teaching that says innovative 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 always unguarded truths," he added.

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

That's unlikely, the attorneys said.

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

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

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

"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 design," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of problems, 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 using their content as training fodder for a completing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you gained from my design to do something that you were not enabled to do under our contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that many claims be dealt with through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"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 Artificial Intelligence 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 really tried to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted recourse," it states.

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

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, wavedream.wiki each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a judgment from a United States court or asteroidsathome.net 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 very complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding of the US.

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

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

"They could have utilized technical measures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise hinder regular customers."

He added: "I don't think they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable info from a public site."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a request for remark.

"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 spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.