1

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

Raul Ohman edited this page 2025-02-05 08:29:36 +08:00

OpenAI and the White House have actually implicated DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little option under intellectual property and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might apply but are mainly unenforceable, they say.
Today, OpenAI and the White House implicated DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

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

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

OpenAI is not saying whether the company plans to pursue legal action, rather promising what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

But could it? Could it sue DeepSeek on "you stole our content" grounds, much like the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in a continuous copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York Times and other news outlets?

BI postured this concern to professionals in innovation law, who said 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 hard time proving an intellectual property or copyright claim, these lawyers said.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - indicating the answers it produces in reaction to questions - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of School stated.

That's since it's unclear whether the answers ChatGPT spits out certify as "creativity," he said.

"There's a teaching that says innovative expression is copyrightable, however facts and ideas 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 imaginative expression or if they are necessarily vulnerable facts," he included.

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

That's unlikely, utahsyardsale.com the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is a permitted "fair use" exception to copyright security.

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

There might be a difference 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 design into another design," as DeepSeek is said to have done, Kortz said.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is more likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, though it comes with its own set of problems, said Anupam Chander, who teaches innovation law at Georgetown University.

Related stories

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

"So maybe that's the claim you may perhaps 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 permitted to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service need that the majority of claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unauthorized use or abuse of the Services or intellectual home violation or misappropriation."

There's a larger hitch, however, specialists said.

"You need to know that the fantastic 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 Terms of 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 enforce these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for excellent reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That remains in part due to the fact that design outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and vmeste-so-vsemi.ru the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "offer minimal recourse," it states.

"I believe they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and since courts normally will not impose arrangements not to contend in the absence of an IP right that would prevent that competitors."

Lawsuits between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly tricky, Kortz stated.

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 incredibly complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and social.japrime.id the balancing of specific and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, stuffed procedure," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself much better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have utilized technical procedures to obstruct repetitive access to their site," Lemley said. "But doing so would also interfere with typical consumers."

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

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

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