thetinytravelers

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

OpenAI and the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use may use however are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

The Trump administration's leading AI czar stated this training process, called "distilling," totaled up to copyright theft. OpenAI, meanwhile, engel-und-waisen.de told Business Insider and other outlets that it's investigating whether "DeepSeek might have inappropriately distilled our models."

OpenAI is not saying whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, ai-db.science instead guaranteeing what a representative called "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our innovation."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, similar to the grounds OpenAI was itself sued on in a continuous copyright claim submitted in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI presented this concern to professionals in technology law, who stated tough 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 a copyright or copyright claim, these attorneys said.

"The concern is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it creates in action to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School said.

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

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

"There's a huge question in intellectual property law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded facts," he included.

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

That's not likely, the attorneys said.

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

If they do a 180 and inform 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 reasonable 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 model into another model," as DeepSeek is said to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, said Anupam Chander, who teaches technology law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

"So maybe that's the suit you might 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 design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service require that the majority of claims be solved through arbitration, not claims. There's an exception for lawsuits "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home infringement or misappropriation."

There's a bigger drawback, however, professionals said.

"You must understand that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to usage are 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 Infotech Policy.

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

"This is most likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it includes. That remains in part because model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and due to the fact that laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal restricted option," it states.

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

Lawsuits between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are always tricky, 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 come down to the Chinese legal system," he said.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly 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 founding of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have protected itself better from a distilling attack?

"They could have utilized technical steps to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise interfere with typical customers."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away react to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize approaches, including what's called distillation, to attempt to replicate innovative U.S. AI models," Rhianna Donaldson, passfun.awardspace.us an OpenAI representative, told BI in an emailed declaration.