GitLab

OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its brand-new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual residential or commercial property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might use but are largely unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a design that's now almost as excellent.

The Trump administration's top AI czar stated this training procedure, elclasificadomx.com called "distilling," amounted to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and photorum.eclat-mauve.fr other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

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

BI presented this concern to professionals in innovation law, who said tough 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 showing an intellectual property or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

That's since it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "creativity," he stated.

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

"There's a substantial concern in intellectual home law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare 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 usage" exception to copyright security.

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

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation 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 possibly that's the suit you may possibly bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander said.

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you took advantage of my model to do something that you were not allowed to do under our contract."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority of claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or intellectual property infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger hitch, however, specialists stated.

"You should know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model developer has actually tried to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is likely for excellent factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part due to the fact that model 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 limited option," 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 because courts normally will not enforce contracts not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits between celebrations in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles 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 extremely complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have secured itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also disrupt normal customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to an ask 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 models," Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed statement.