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

alejandrina429 edited this page 2025-02-05 10:32:00 +01:00

OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply 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 may apply but are largely unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's top AI czar said this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to intellectual residential or commercial property theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have wrongly distilled our designs."

OpenAI is not saying whether the business plans to pursue legal action, instead guaranteeing what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, just like 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 presented this question to experts in innovation law, who stated tough DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill fight for OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the responses it produces in reaction to queries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

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

"There's a big concern in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute imaginative expression or if they are always unguarded facts," he added.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "reasonable use" to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable use, "that might come back to kind of bite them," Kortz stated. "DeepSeek could state, 'Hey, weren't you just stating 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 posts into a design" - as the Times implicates OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is more most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based claim, 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 vmeste-so-vsemi.ru Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid using their material as training fodder for a contending AI design.

"So maybe that's the lawsuit you may potentially bring - a contract-based claim, not an IP-based claim," Chander said.

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

There might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's terms of service need that most claims be solved through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger drawback, however, experts said.

"You need to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most 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 design developer has in fact attempted to enforce these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for good reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part because design outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and morphomics.science the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer restricted option," it states.

"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 normally will not implement agreements not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

Lawsuits between celebrations in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, Kortz said.

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and 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 boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another exceptionally complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the founding 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 used technical steps to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise disrupt regular customers."

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

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

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize techniques, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to duplicate sophisticated U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI representative, informed BI in an emailed declaration.