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

Alejandra Lansford edited this page 2025-02-09 01:30:56 +01:00

OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual residential or commercial property and agreement law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might apply however are mainly unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something akin to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting information trove to quickly and inexpensively train a design that's now practically as good.

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have wrongly distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business prepares to pursue legal action, instead promising what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to safeguard our technology."

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

BI postured this concern to professionals in technology law, who said challenging 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 showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

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

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

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

"There's a big question in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up innovative expression or if they are necessarily unprotected realities," he added.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and claim that its outputs are safeguarded?

That's unlikely, the lawyers said.

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

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a use, "that might return to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you simply stating that training is fair usage?'"

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

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

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of issues, annunciogratis.net 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 completing AI design.

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

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

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

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

"You should know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are likely unenforceable," Chander said. He was referring to a January 10 paper, "The Mirage of Expert System 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 model developer has really attempted to implement these terms with monetary penalties 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's 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 option," 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 since courts generally won't impose contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits between celebrations in different nations, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, pattern-wiki.win are constantly challenging, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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 said.

Here, scientific-programs.science OpenAI would be at the grace of another extremely complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of private and corporate rights and national 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 incursion?

"They might have used technical measures to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with normal customers."

He included: "I do not think they could, or should, have a legitimate legal claim versus the searching of uncopyrightable information from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not immediately react to a request for comment.

"We know that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to replicate innovative U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed statement.