Who Owns the Transcript?

Why Reporters Must Push Back Against AI Summaries and Derivative Exploitation

The November 15, 2024, meeting of the California Court Reporters Board (CRB) laid bare a looming crisis for the reporting profession: AI-generated deposition summaries. Agencies are already advertising these products, bundling them with transcript orders, and using them to lure clients away from reporters who follow the law. The CRB staff currently views AI summaries as falling outside the prohibition in CCR 2474, leaving a dangerous vacuum where firms can commercialize transcripts in ways reporters never authorized.

This isn’t just a debate about technology. At its core, it’s about ownership, control, and fairness. Who owns the transcript? Who controls how it is used? And who gets paid when agencies spin off derivative products like condensed transcripts, concordances, word indexes, rough drafts—and now AI summaries?

The answers to these questions will define whether reporters remain respected professionals with control over their work product, or simply silent laborers feeding a machine that others profit from.

---

The Legal Landscape – Transcripts as Work Product

Facts vs. Expression

Agencies often argue that transcripts are not intellectual property because they are “just facts.” It’s true that testimony itself—the words spoken by a witness—is not copyrightable. Courts have long held that facts cannot be owned.

But reporters don’t just capture facts. They arrange, format, punctuate, and contextualize testimony in a way that requires judgment and skill. The placement of commas, the indication of interruptions, the treatment of overlapping speech—all of these are expression. Expression is protectable, even if the underlying facts are not.

In that sense, a transcript is closer to a musical score than a raw audio recording. The notes may be dictated by the speaker, but the rendering is the reporter’s craft.

Statutory Overlay

In many states, including California, statutes govern transcript production, ownership, and access. These laws assume that until certified and delivered, the transcript is under the reporter’s control. California’s Government Code, for instance, sets page rates and prescribes how copies are distributed. This statutory framework undermines the agency argument that transcripts are “theirs” to use freely.

---

Derivative Products – Where the Real Fight Lies

Even if agencies prevail in saying the transcript itself is not copyrightable, there is little question that derivative products—condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, realtime feeds, rough drafts, and now AI summaries—are distinct commercial offerings.

For decades, reporters have charged separately for condensed versions, word indexes, realtime streaming, rough drafts, and other derivative products. Realtime streaming commands premium rates. Rough drafts are sold with disclaimers. These services carry additional value because of the reporter’s effort, judgment, and skill. Derivative offerings exist only because the reporter produced the verbatim transcript.

When agencies resell or bundle those derivative products without compensating the reporter, this is not simply “double-dipping”—it’s unjust enrichment. Agencies profit directly off the labor of reporters, excluding them from the revenue generated by transformed or summarized versions of their own work.

Tools such as Steno’s Transcript Genius illustrate this: summaries, semantic searches, multi-transcript comparison are all derivative services built on reporter transcripts. Yet if reporters are not paid or consulted for such add-on services, the agency is extracting value that properly belongs in part to the reporter. The recent StenoImperium article “AI Summaries in Litigation – Efficiency or a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?” underscores how errors in AI summaries can lead not just to financial misjudgments in litigation, but also to ethical and legal liability—yet the profit often goes to the entity marketing the summary product, not the person (reporter) whose work underlies it.

AI summaries are simply the newest derivative product. They may be marketed as “value-added,” but in reality, they are value-extracted: the value of the reporter’s work siphoned off into a machine that the agency profits from.

---

The Dangers of AI Summaries

1. They Are Not Neutral
   Summarization is inherently interpretive. AI models highlight what they “think” is important and discard the rest. That’s bias, no matter how it is dressed up. A deposition transcript is supposed to be a complete, impartial record. Allowing AI summaries to masquerade as “neutral digests” is misleading to consumers and courts.
2. They Undermine the Official Record
   Attorneys may come to rely on AI summaries in place of the full transcript. Opposing counsel may never see the same summary. This erodes the principle that the certified transcript is the single source of truth.
3. They Threaten Confidentiality
   Many generative AI tools are cloud-based and retain data to “train” models. Feeding transcripts into such systems risks exposing personally identifiable information, privileged testimony, and sensitive case details. Reporters could be implicated in breaches they never authorized.
4. They Create Market Distortion
   Large firms with proprietary AI platforms or partnerships can undercut smaller firms and independent reporters. Reporters like Ms. Pierce, who testified at the CRB meeting, are already losing clients because they refuse to break the law or skirt the gray area.

---

Recent Examples from StenoImperium

Two recent articles illustrate both the promise and the peril of AI tools for transcripts. In “AI Transcript Genius – a Steno product,” Steno’s Transcript Genius is described as an AI-tool that can generate customized summaries, do semantic searches, compare multiple transcripts, and answer attorney queries about specific testimony, all while offering efficiencies and saving several hours per case. However, what is marketed as assistance edges into the territory of derivative work and raises questions of ownership, value extraction, and liability.

Another piece, “AI Summaries in Litigation – Efficiency or a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen?,” recounts a real instance where an AI summary failed to catch that a medical expert had testified that the injured plaintiff would require future surgery. Because of this omission, defense counsel undervalued the claim; the case ended in a large excess verdict. The article warns that these kinds of summary failures are not theoretical—they have real stakes. It argues that agencies, law firms, and tool providers could face liability when summary errors affect case value or outcome.

---

Contractual Safeguards – What Reporters Can Do Now

While the CRB deliberates, reporters don’t have to wait. They can protect themselves immediately by strengthening their independent contractor agreements with agencies.

Sample Addendum Language

• No AI Use Without Consent
  “Reporter’s transcripts shall not be used, in whole or in part, to generate or facilitate the creation of AI-generated summaries, digests, abstracts, or similar derivative works without the express written consent of the Reporter.”
• Revenue Participation
  “If the Agency sells derivative products (including condensed transcripts, word indexes, concordances, realtime feeds, rough drafts, or AI-generated outputs) based on Reporter’s transcript, Reporter shall receive compensation consistent with statutory transcript fee schedules.”
• Data Protection Clause
  “Agency shall not upload Reporter’s transcripts into third-party AI platforms or cloud-based software without Reporter’s prior written authorization. Agency is responsible for any data breaches or privacy violations resulting from unauthorized uploads.”
• Ownership Acknowledgment
  “Until certified and delivered, all transcripts remain the intellectual work product of the Reporter. No derivative use shall be made during this period without Reporter’s authorization.”

Why This Matters

• Equity: Reporters deserve compensation when their labor generates additional revenue streams.
• Transparency: Reporters should know if their transcripts are being fed into AI engines.
• Professional Integrity: Reporters must not be complicit in products that undermine the neutrality of the record.

---

Regulatory Reform – What the CRB Should Do

The CRB cannot sit on the sidelines. By declaring that AI summaries fall outside the narrow definition of CCR 2474, staff has effectively given agencies a green light to exploit the loophole. That is regulatory drift at its worst.

The Board has clear authority to:

• Expand the definition of “assist” in CCR 2474 to include enabling AI summarization (even “pressing a button”).
• Prohibit derivative products from being created or sold by reporters or agencies without explicit statutory authorization.
• Mandate disclosure whenever AI summaries are offered, making clear they are not official records.
• Codify privacy protections to prevent unauthorized uploading of transcripts into AI platforms.

---

Strategic Framing – Shifting the Debate

The debate should not hinge solely on whether transcripts are intellectual property. That fight is nuanced, and agencies exploit the ambiguity. Instead, reporters should press three unassailable points:

1. I own my labor and certification.
   Agencies cannot monetize my work into other products without my consent.
2. Derivative products are not free.
   Condensed transcripts, concordances, realtime, and rough drafts have always commanded extra fees. AI summaries are no different.
3. The official record is sacred.
   Any attempt to replace, supplement, or compete with the transcript risks undermining justice itself.

---

A Call to Action

The transcript is more than just words on a page. It is the official record of justice, created by a skilled professional bound by oath and ethics. Allowing agencies to strip-mine that record into AI summaries without oversight, consent, or compensation is not innovation—it is exploitation.

Reporters must act now by:

• Insisting on contractual protections in their agreements.
• Demanding that the CRB clarify CCR 2474 to prohibit AI summaries.
• Educating attorneys and judges that the transcript—not an AI digest—is the only neutral, reliable record.

Technology moves fast, but ethics and fairness cannot be left behind. If we fail to assert ownership, protect our work, and demand compensation, the profession risks being reduced to a raw data feed for agencies and algorithms.

AI summaries are not neutral. They are not official. They are not safe. And they are not the role of a court reporter.

StenoImperium
Court Reporting. Unfiltered. Unafraid.

Disclaimer

“This article includes analysis and commentary based on observed events, public records, and legal statutes.”

The content of this post is intended for informational and discussion purposes only. All opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on publicly available information, industry standards, and good-faith concerns about nonprofit governance and professional ethics. No part of this article is intended to defame, accuse, or misrepresent any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to verify facts independently and to engage constructively in dialogue about leadership, transparency, and accountability in the court reporting profession.

• The content on this blog represents the personal opinions, observations, and commentary of the author. It is intended for editorial and journalistic purposes and is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
• Nothing here constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review the facts and form independent conclusions.

***To unsubscribe, just smash that UNSUBSCRIBE button below — yes, the one that’s universally glued to the bottom of every newsletter ever created. It’s basically the “Exit” sign of the email world. You can’t miss it. It looks like this (brace yourself for the excitement):