Cloud convenience comes with a hidden cost: many platforms quietly reserve the right to use or sell your synchronized transcripts and audio to train their AI. Whether or not AI is “inevitable” isn’t the point—consent is. Legal transcripts contain privileged, high-value data, and no reporter should unknowingly contribute to systems designed to replace them. Protecting the record means protecting our work.
Tag Archives: LegalTechRisks
AI Summaries, CCR 2474, and the Fight Over Who Owns the Record
AI deposition summaries aren’t innovation—they’re exploitation. Agencies are monetizing transcripts into derivative products without consent or compensation, creating unjust enrichment while undermining the integrity of the record. California’s CCR 2474 wasn’t written with AI in mind, but the principle remains: reporters must not be in the business of interpretation. It’s time for contracts, regulation, and reform to safeguard neutrality, fairness, and trust in the transcript.
Who Owns the Transcript?
AI-generated deposition summaries may look like efficiency, but they’re really exploitation. Agencies are repackaging reporters’ transcripts into derivative products—condensed transcripts, indexes, concordances, now AI summaries—without consent or compensation. This is unjust enrichment. Reporters must protect their work with contracts, while the Court Reporters Board closes loopholes in CCR 2474. The official record is sacred, and AI summaries threaten its integrity.
STENOIMPERIUM 