Usually yes, if you have consent. The question is whose consent you need. Some places require only one person on the call to agree, which can be you. Others require every single participant to agree. Which rule applies depends on where each person is, not just where you are.
The safe approach in every jurisdiction is the same: say out loud at the start of the call that you are recording, and carry on only if nobody objects. It takes four seconds and it removes the entire problem.
This is general information, not legal advice. If a recording might end up in a dispute, ask a lawyer in the relevant place.
Most recording law splits into two camps.
One-party consent means the recording is lawful if at least one person in the conversation knows about it. If you are on the call, that can be you. Many US states work this way.
All-party consent means everyone in the conversation has to agree. California, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and several other US states require this. So do many countries outside the US.
The complication with online meetings is that people are in different places. A call between someone in a one-party state and someone in an all-party state is not obviously governed by one rule, and the cautious reading is that the stricter rule applies. That is why every practical guide lands on the same advice: just get everyone's agreement.
In the Philippines, RA 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping Act, requires consent from the parties to the communication, and it is criminal rather than civil.
Across the EU and the UK, recording a call that contains personal data engages data protection law, which generally means people should be told what is being recorded, why, and how long it will be kept.
Canada and Australia have their own rules that vary by province and state. None of this is exotic. Almost everywhere, telling people is either required or strongly advisable.
Not reliably. A bot named Notetaker appearing in the participant list is a signal that something is happening, and some people read it that way. But it is not an announcement, it is not a request, and nobody agreed to anything. If a participant later says they did not know the call was being recorded, pointing at a bot in the attendee list is a weak position.
The reverse is also true, and worth saying plainly: recording without a bot does not make anything secret or acceptable that would otherwise not be. Botless recording removes a distraction from the call. It does not remove your obligations.
Jotted shows a reminder before recording starts asking whether you have told the participants. You can turn it off if you find it annoying, and turn it back on in Settings. The Terms of Service say plainly that complying with recording law is the user's responsibility, because it is.
There is deliberately no feature that announces the recording into the call for you. Saying it yourself is better, and it takes less time than reading this sentence.
In all-party consent places, yes, from everyone on the call. In one-party consent places, your own knowledge can be enough. Because online meetings often span jurisdictions, the practical answer is to ask everyone at the start.
In many places, yes, and in some it is a criminal offence rather than a civil matter. Even where it is technically lawful, it damages trust badly if it comes out later.
No. The law is about consent to being recorded, not about whether a software participant was visible. Botless recording removes a distraction, not an obligation.
The Philippines' Anti-Wiretapping Act, which requires consent from the parties to a communication before it is recorded. It applies to online calls as well as phone calls.
Be careful. Agreement to be recorded is not the same as agreement to be distributed. For anything sensitive, ask before sending it on.
Record free forever, no card and no bot. Join the waitlist and you'll be first in.
Free forever plan · Unlimited recordings · No bot, ever