# Posting transcript of phone call illegal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 23, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249 "2005-01-23T15:53:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/1 "2005-01-23T15:53:21Z")
If a person had a telephone conversation with an inept customer service rep and posted the general contents of that conversation on a message board, would that be illegal? The conversation was not recorded as it was happening, and the posted version was not word-for-word, just a basic recap. Also, the posted version wasn’t particularly scathing, just humorously highlighting the ineptitude of the rep. As legal action has been threatened, a cite would be helpful. ---
**Author:** ![AmbushBug](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ambushbug/32/4600_2.png) [@AmbushBug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AmbushBug)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/2 "2005-01-23T18:11:19Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > As legal action has been threatened, a cite would be helpful. You need a lawyer, not man-off-the-street advice. That said, I remember downloading a recording of one of these sorts of conversations where the caller who was getting the runaround told them he was recording the conversation, and the supervisor at the company he was calling told him he couldn’t do that without prior norification and permission. He retorted that when he was on hold, the hold music was interspersed with messages saying that “this call may be recorded for quality purposes…” and therefore he had a grant of permission to record his call, seeing as how he felt he wasn’t getting the quality of service he was expecting. I thought that was pretty funny. ---
**Author:** ![aahala](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a88e4f/32.png) [@aahala](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aahala)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/3 "2005-01-23T18:22:44Z")
As long as your summary does not include references that could idenfity the responder or the company, I think you’re OK. DISCLAIMER: All my legal training comes from watching Perry Mason. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/4 "2005-01-23T19:00:01Z")
Thanks, guys. I’m not the one being threatened with legal action, but I’m a member here and thought I’d run it up the flagpole on this forum. Actually, the telephone converstion “transcript” was copied and pasted from a post on an entirely different board than the one being threatened. The post does reference the company, but not the name of the person on the phone. I think I was just a bit surprised at the legal threat. I have relayed the contents of many phone conversations before via spoken word and never considered that I might be sued for doing so. It seems strange to me that the contents of all telephone conversations must be kept in strict secrecy. I guess writing it as opposed to speaking it is the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/5 "2005-01-23T19:43:25Z")
> [@Duke of Rat](#): > > I guess writing it as opposed to speaking it is the difference. Possibly. You cannot publish the contents of a letter than you are sent, because those contents are considered to be the property of the writer - and in today’s law are automatically in copyright to the writer. You need the writer’s permission, in other words. This has been a complication for many biographies when permission has been withheld. However, a recap, summary, or paraphrase of the letter is legal to publish, as long as the source material is not too closely copied. What “too closely” means keeps copyright attorneys in business, of course. And corporate attorneys earn their retainers by sending out threatening letters. The letters may have no foundation in law, but no sensible individual wants to spend the money to fight even a bogus claim. IANAL, but I can’t see any legal foundation for prohibiting a non-word-for-word recap. Not that that matters in the slightest in the real world. ---
**Author:** ![Duke\_of\_Rat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ad7895/32.png) [@Duke\_of\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke_of_Rat)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/6 "2005-01-23T23:21:33Z")
After quite a bit of Googling, I can’t find any laws except for dealing with recording of conversations. As the company was based in Ohio, it looks like Ohio has a law where even recording is legal as long as it is done by one of the participants in the conversation. As this call was not recorded, just the guy’s recollection of the conversation, and he was a participant in the conversation, looks like the legal action is just a bluff. IANAL of course. > [@](#): > > Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.52: Intercepting, recording or disclosing the contents of a wire, oral or electronic communication if a person is a participant, or has obtained the consent of at least one participant, is legal unless it is accompanied by a criminal or tortious intent. > > Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of “oral communication,” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2933.51. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2005, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/7 "2005-01-23T23:44:05Z")
> [@AmbushBug](#): > > He retorted that when he was on hold, the hold music was interspersed with messages saying that “this call may be recorded for quality purposes…” and therefore he had a grant of permission to record his call, seeing as how he felt he wasn’t getting the quality of service he was expecting. I thought that was pretty funny. I love this. And it does point out teh importance of all those grammer lessons we had. The recording always says “may”. So when can we expect companies to switch to the proper “This call might be recorded for quality purposes…” ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/8 "2005-01-24T02:17:32Z")
Nope, sorry, they’re using “may” correctly. The use here is in the sense of " this call may, at our discretion, be recorded…" rather than “this call might, as part of a random sampling, be recorded…” It’s analogous to this usage note from Theodore M. Bernstein’s _The Careful Writer_: > [@](#): > > _May_ poses a possibility; _might_ adds a greater degree of uncertainty to the possibility. This shade of difference appears in the following sentence: "Any broadcasting station that airs more commercials than the code allows may be fined, and in extreme cases its license might be taken away. Notice that no grammatical difference dictates the use of _may_ in one instance and _might_ in the other; it is rather a difference in intended meaning. ---
**Author:** ![ZenBeam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/3ab097/32.png) [@ZenBeam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZenBeam)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/9 "2005-01-24T18:01:52Z")
Apart from their use of “may”, does the fact that they’re notifying the caller they might be recording the call mean that the caller may also record the call? Both parties know that the call might be being recorded, so neither side can complain that they didn’t consent to being recorded. ---
**Author:** ![Gary\_Robson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gary_robson/32/3448_2.png) [@Gary\_Robson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gary_Robson)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/posting-transcript-of-phone-call-illegal/286249/10 "2005-01-24T20:06:11Z")
Saying “we may record this call” is unambiguous. Saying “this call may be recorded” could mean they might be recording it (which is what they meant), or it could be interpreted as giving you permission to record it. As to the rest of the OP, summarizing the conversation is _probably_ not illegal (IANAL), but posting a summary doesn’t get around libel laws. If you want to ignore their legal threat, talk to a lawyer first. Even if you’re completely in the clear, fighting the suit can be very expensive.