1

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

Antwan Rosenthal edited this page 2025-02-05 02:12:27 +00:00

OpenAI and the White House have implicated DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of usage might apply however are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, 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 questions and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now almost as great.

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, on the other hand, informed Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek may have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, lespoetesbizarres.free.fr rather promising what a spokesperson described "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our material" grounds, just like 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 positioned this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated 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 proving a copyright or copyright claim, these legal representatives said.

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

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

"There's a doctrine that says creative expression is copyrightable, however facts and ideas are not," Kortz, oke.zone 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 constitute imaginative expression or if they are always unguarded realities," he included.

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyhow and claim 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 a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright protection.

If they do a 180 and passfun.awardspace.us tell DeepSeek that training is not a reasonable usage, "that might return to kind of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you simply saying that training is fair use?'"

There may be a difference in 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 model," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract claim is most likely

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, wiki.piratenpartei.de though it features its own set of problems, stated Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

The regards to service for Big Tech chatbots like those by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a completing AI design.

"So possibly that's the lawsuit you may perhaps 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 might be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, lovewiki.faith though, experts stated.

"You must understand that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are most likely unenforceable," Chander said. 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 Infotech Policy.

To date, "no model creator has really tried to enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for good reason: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it adds. That's in part because design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and trademarketclassifieds.com Abuse Act "deal limited option," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts normally won't impose contracts not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competition."

Lawsuits between parties in different countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always difficult, 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 cash or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, lespoetesbizarres.free.fr OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of individual and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, stuffed process," Kortz included.

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have utilized technical measures to block repeated access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also hinder typical clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to a request for comment.

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