OpenAI has Little Legal Recourse Versus DeepSeek, Tech Law Experts Say - 9aak

OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of utilizing ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's regards to usage might use but are mainly unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they stated the Chinese upstart had actually bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with questions and hoovered up the resulting information trove to rapidly and cheaply train a model that's now almost as excellent.

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

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, instead assuring what a spokesperson termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to secure our innovation."

But could it? Could it take legal action against DeepSeek on "you stole our content" premises, much like the premises OpenAI was itself took legal action against on in an ongoing copyright claim filed in 2023 by The New York City Times and akropolistravel.com other news outlets?

BI presented this question to experts in innovation law, morphomics.science who stated difficult 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 tough time showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, wiki.dulovic.tech these legal representatives stated.

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

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

"There's a teaching that states innovative expression is copyrightable, but truths and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

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

Could OpenAI roll those dice anyway and declare that its outputs are secured?

That's unlikely, the legal representatives said.

OpenAI is already on the record in The New York Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "reasonable use" exception to copyright defense.

If they do a 180 and inform DeepSeek that training is not a fair usage, "that may return to type of bite them," Kortz said. "DeepSeek could say, 'Hey, weren't you just saying that training is reasonable usage?'"

There might be a difference in between the Times and DeepSeek cases, Kortz included.

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a model" - 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 quite predicament with regard to the line it's been toeing relating to fair use," he added.

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

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

Related stories

The terms of service for Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their material as training fodder for a completing AI design.

"So possibly that's the lawsuit you might 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 permitted to do under our contract."

There may be a drawback, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that many claims be fixed through arbitration, not suits. 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 hitch, though, professionals stated.

"You should understand that the brilliant 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 Terms of Use Restrictions," by Stanford Law's Mark A. Lemley and Peter Henderson of Princeton University's Center for Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model creator has actually tried to implement these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is most likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part since model outputs "are mainly not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act "deal limited option," it states.

"I think they are most 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 generally will not enforce arrangements not to complete in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above difficulties and won a from an US court or arbitrator, "in order to get DeepSeek to turn over money 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 grace of another extremely complex location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and nationwide sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling attack?

"They might have used technical procedures to block repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would likewise disrupt typical clients."

He added: "I do not believe they could, or should, have a valid legal claim against the browsing of uncopyrightable info from a public website."

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to an ask for comment.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to use methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to attempt to reproduce advanced U.S. AI designs," Rhianna Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, told BI in an emailed statement.