realtalksociety

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

OpenAI and accc.rcec.sinica.edu.tw the White House have actually accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to inexpensively train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law say OpenAI has little recourse under intellectual home and agreement law.
- OpenAI's regards to use may use however are largely unenforceable, they state.
Today, OpenAI and archmageriseswiki.com the White House accused DeepSeek of something comparable to theft.

In a flurry of press declarations, they said the Chinese upstart had bombarded OpenAI's chatbots with inquiries and hoovered up the resulting data trove to quickly and cheaply train a model that's now nearly as great.

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

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

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

BI postured this question to specialists in innovation law, who stated difficult 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 tough time showing an intellectual residential or commercial property or copyright claim, these attorneys stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - implying the responses it creates in action to queries - "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, however truths and concepts are not," Kortz, who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, stated.

"There's a huge concern in copyright law today about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever make up creative expression or if they are necessarily unguarded truths," he included.

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

That's not likely, the legal representatives stated.

OpenAI is currently on the record in The New york city Times' copyright case arguing that training AI is an allowable "reasonable use" exception to copyright protection.

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

There might be a distinction 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 stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract suit is most likely

A breach-of-contract claim is much likelier than an IP-based lawsuit, 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 developed by OpenAI and Anthropic forbid utilizing their content as training fodder for a competing AI model.

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

"Not, 'You copied something from me,' but that you gained from my design to do something that you were not permitted to do under our agreement."

There may be a hitch, Chander and Kortz said. OpenAI's terms of service need that the majority of claims be dealt with through arbitration, not lawsuits. There's an exception for claims "to stop unapproved use or abuse of the Services or copyright violation or misappropriation."

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

"You should know that the fantastic scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are most likely unenforceable," Chander stated. He was referring to 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 Information Technology Policy.

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

"This is likely for good factor: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is doubtful," it adds. That's in part since model outputs "are largely not copyrightable" and because laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and [users.atw.hu](http://users.atw.hu/samp-info-forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=cd92f3b0feabf6656f8bb7a632aa919c&action=profile