Skip to content

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
    • Help
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in / Register
S
silkywayshine
  • Project
    • Project
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Cycle Analytics
  • Issues 17
    • Issues 17
    • List
    • Board
    • Labels
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 0
    • Merge Requests 0
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Snippets
    • Snippets
  • Members
    • Members
  • Collapse sidebar
  • Activity
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Issue Boards
  • Basil Toledo
  • silkywayshine
  • Issues
  • #11

Closed
Open
Opened Feb 05, 2025 by Basil Toledo@basil001551647
  • Report abuse
  • New issue
Report abuse New issue

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


OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may apply but are mainly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, lespoetesbizarres.free.fr they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to rapidly and inexpensively train a design that's now practically as great.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," amounted to intellectual property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you took our content" premises, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI posed this question to experts in technology law, who said 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 difficult time proving an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these lawyers stated.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses it generates in reaction to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

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

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

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he included.

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

That's unlikely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city 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 use, "that might return to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair 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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a competing AI model.

"So maybe that's the suit you may perhaps bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander stated.

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

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual residential or commercial property infringement or misappropriation."

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

"You need to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are likely unenforceable," Chander stated. 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 Infotech Policy.

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

"This is likely for good factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part because 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 "deal limited option," it states.

"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally won't enforce arrangements not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly challenging, Kortz stated.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above obstacles and it-viking.ch won a judgment from a United States 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 mercy of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, complicated, laden process," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have secured itself much better from a distilling attack?

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

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to an ask for remark.

"We know 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," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.

Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
No due date
0
Labels
None
Assign labels
  • View project labels
Reference: basil001551647/silkywayshine#11