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

jerilynmatthes edited this page 2025-02-20 03:05:34 +07:00

OpenAI and the White House have accused DeepSeek of using ChatGPT to cheaply train its new chatbot.
- Experts in tech law state OpenAI has little recourse under copyright and contract law.
- OpenAI's terms of use might use however are mainly unenforceable, they say.
This week, OpenAI and bio.rogstecnologia.com.br the White House accused DeepSeek of something similar to theft.

In a flurry of press statements, they said 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 nearly as great.

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

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

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

BI posed this concern to experts in technology law, 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 difficult time showing a copyright or copyright claim, clashofcryptos.trade these lawyers stated.

"The question is whether ChatGPT outputs" - meaning the responses it produces in action to inquiries - "are copyrightable at all," Mason Kortz of Harvard Law School stated.

That's due to the fact that it's uncertain whether the answers ChatGPT spits out qualify as "imagination," he said.

"There's a doctrine that says imaginative expression is copyrightable, however truths and ideas are not," Kortz, engel-und-waisen.de who teaches at Harvard's Cyberlaw Clinic, said.

"There's a big question in copyright law right now about whether the outputs of a generative AI can ever constitute creative expression or if they are always vulnerable truths," he added.

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

That's not likely, the lawyers said.

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

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

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

"Maybe it's more transformative to turn news short articles into a model" - as the Times accuses OpenAI of doing - "than it is to turn outputs of a model into another design," as DeepSeek is stated to have actually done, Kortz stated.

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

A breach-of-contract lawsuit is most likely

A breach-of-contract suit is much likelier than an IP-based suit, though it includes its own set of issues, 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 contending AI model.

"So perhaps that's the suit you might possibly 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 allowed to do under our agreement."

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

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

"You ought to know that the dazzling scholar Mark Lemley and a coauthor argue that AI regards to use are 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 Information Technology Policy.

To date, "no model developer has in fact tried to implement these terms with financial charges or injunctive relief," the paper states.

"This is likely for great reason: we think that the legal enforceability of these licenses is questionable," it includes. That's in part since model outputs "are mostly not copyrightable" and grandtribunal.org since laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Computer Fraud and yewiki.org Abuse Act "offer minimal option," it says.

"I think they are most likely unenforceable," Lemley told BI of OpenAI's terms of service, "due to the fact that DeepSeek didn't take anything copyrighted by OpenAI and due to the fact that courts usually will not impose contracts not to contend in the lack of an IP right that would avoid that competition."

Lawsuits in between parties in various countries, each with its own legal and enforcement systems, are constantly difficult, 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 money or stop doing what it's doing, the enforcement would boil down to the Chinese legal system," he stated.

Here, OpenAI would be at the mercy of another incredibly complicated area of law - the enforcement of foreign judgments and the balancing of specific and corporate rights and national sovereignty - that stretches back to before the starting of the US.

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

Could OpenAI have safeguarded itself better from a distilling incursion?

"They could have used technical steps to obstruct repetitive access to their website," Lemley stated. "But doing so would also interfere with normal clients."

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

Representatives for DeepSeek did not instantly react to a demand for remark.

"We understand that groups in the PRC are actively working to utilize methods, including what's referred to as distillation, to try to reproduce advanced U.S. AI designs," Donaldson, an OpenAI spokesperson, informed BI in an emailed declaration.