OpenAI has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek, Tech Law Experts Say
OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
– Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and agreement law.
– OpenAI’s regards to use might apply however are mostly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.
In a flurry of press statements, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI’s chatbots with queries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a model that’s now almost as good.
The Trump administration’s leading AI czar stated this training process, called “distilling,” totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and wiki.whenparked.com other outlets that it’s investigating whether “DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our designs.”
OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson termed “aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology.”
But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on “you stole our content” premises, 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 posed this question to experts in technology 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 proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, morphomics.science these legal representatives said.
“The question is whether ChatGPT outputs” – implying the answers it creates in reaction to inquiries – “are copyrightable at all,” Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.
That’s because it’s unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as “creativity,” he said.
“There’s a teaching that states imaginative expression is copyrightable, however facts and ideas are not,” Kortz, who teaches at Harvard’s Cyberlaw Clinic, said.
“There’s a huge question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable realities,” he added.
Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and declare that its outputs are protected?
That’s not likely, the attorneys said.
OpenAI is already on the record in The New York Times’ copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowed “fair use” exception to copyright security.
If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, “that may come back to kind of bite them,” Kortz stated. “DeepSeek could state, ‘Hey, weren’t you just saying that training is reasonable use?'”
There may 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 design into another design,” as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz said.
“But this still puts OpenAI in a quite predicament with regard to the line it’s been toeing relating to reasonable use,” he included.
A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more most likely
A is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it comes with its own set of issues, stated 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 competing AI model.
“So perhaps that’s the lawsuit you may potentially bring – a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim,” Chander stated.
“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 drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI’s regards to service require that most claims be dealt with through arbitration, not claims. There’s an exception for lawsuits “to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright infringement or misappropriation.”
There’s a larger drawback, though, professionals said.
“You ought to 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 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 actually attempted to implement these terms with financial penalties or injunctive relief,” the paper states.
“This is likely for great factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable,” it adds. That’s in part due to the fact that model outputs “are mainly not copyrightable” and wavedream.wiki due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and users.atw.hu the Computer Fraud and demo.qkseo.in Abuse Act “offer minimal option,” it says.
“I believe they are most likely unenforceable,” Lemley informed BI of OpenAI’s terms of service, “due to the fact that DeepSeek didn’t take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts generally won’t implement arrangements not to compete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competitors.”
Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, forum.altaycoins.com 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 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 location of law – the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty – that stretches back to before the starting of the US.
“So this is, a long, complicated, laden process,” Kortz added.
Could OpenAI have protected itself much better from a distilling attack?
“They could have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their site,” Lemley stated. “But doing so would also hinder regular customers.”
He added: “I don’t believe they could, or should, have a valid 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 methods, including what’s called distillation, to try to replicate sophisticated U.S. AI models,” Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed declaration.