OpenAI has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek, Tech Law Experts Say
OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual residential or commercial property and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might use however are largely unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.
In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and inexpensively train a model that's now practically as great.
The Trump administration's leading AI czar said this training procedure, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual property theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's examining whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our models."
OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."
But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" premises, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?
BI positioned this concern to professionals in technology law, who stated 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 difficult time proving an intellectual home or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.
"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the answers it generates in reaction to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.
That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.
"There's a teaching that says innovative expression is copyrightable, however truths and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.
"There's a huge question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he added.
Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are secured?
That's unlikely, the lawyers stated.
OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright protection.
If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a fair use, "that may return to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating that training is fair usage?'"
There may be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz included.
"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news articles into a model" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a design into another model," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.
"But this still puts OpenAI in a quite tricky situation with regard to the line it's been toeing concerning reasonable usage," he included.
A breach-of-contract claim is most likely
A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based claim, though it features its own set of issues, stated 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 using their content as training fodder for a competing AI design.
"So possibly that's the claim you may possibly bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander said.
"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my design to do something that you were not allowed to do under our contract."
There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for timeoftheworld.date claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."
There's a larger hitch, though, professionals said.
"You ought to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was describing 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 Information Policy.
To date, "no model creator has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.
"This is likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That remains in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited recourse," it says.
"I think they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "since DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and because courts usually will not impose arrangements not to compete in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."
Lawsuits in between celebrations in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, Kortz said.
Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles and won a judgment from a United States 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 mercy of another very complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and wikidevi.wi-cat.ru the balancing of individual and business rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.
"So this is, a long, made complex, laden procedure," Kortz included.
Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?
"They might have utilized technical measures to block repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise hinder typical clients."
He included: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim against the searching of uncopyrightable details from a public website."
Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a demand for remark.
"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to duplicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.