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

Arron Towner edited this page 2025-02-07 03:26:21 +08:00

OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of using 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 use may use but are largely unenforceable, they state.
This week, OpenAI and the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable 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 design that's now almost as good.

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

OpenAI is not stating whether the company prepares to pursue legal action, rather promising what a representative termed "aggressive, proactive countermeasures to protect our technology."

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

BI positioned this question to professionals in innovation law, who stated tough DeepSeek in the courts would be an uphill struggle for utahsyardsale.com OpenAI now that the content-appropriation shoe is on the other foot.

OpenAI would have a tough time showing an intellectual home or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

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

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

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

"There's a substantial question in intellectual property law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative 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 lawyers said.

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

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

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

"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 stated to have done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

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

Related stories

The terms of service for iuridictum.pecina.cz Big Tech chatbots like those established by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a contending AI design.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' however that you gained from my model to do something that you were not enabled to do under our agreement."

There might be a drawback, Chander and Kortz stated. OpenAI's regards to service need that most claims be resolved through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for suits "to stop unauthorized usage or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

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

"You must understand that the dazzling 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 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 developer has in fact attempted to impose these terms with monetary penalties or injunctive relief," the paper says.

"This is most likely for excellent factor: we believe that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That remains in part because design 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 minimal option," it says.

"I believe they are likely unenforceable," Lemley informed BI of OpenAI's regards to service, "because DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts generally will not implement contracts not to complete in the absence of an IP right that would avoid that competitors."

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

Even if OpenAI cleared all the above hurdles 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, OpenAI would be at the grace of another incredibly complicated location of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the of individual and business rights and nationwide sovereignty - that extends back to before the starting of the US.

"So this is, a long, made complex, fraught process," Kortz added.

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They might have utilized technical steps to obstruct repeated access to their website," Lemley said. "But doing so would likewise disrupt typical clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not right away respond to a demand for remark.

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