EnglishEspañol
Oregon flag

Oregon

Oregon Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Consent, and Limits

Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 22, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 22, 2026. · 5 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

Oregon Laws on Recording in Public: Rights, Consent, and Limits

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I record video in public in Oregon?

Yes. Silent video recording in public is protected by the First Amendment and is not governed by ORS 165.540. You can film on public streets, sidewalks, parks, and other public areas. If your video captures audio of in-person conversations, the all-party notification requirement applies.

Can I record a conversation in a public park in Oregon?

You can record silent video freely. For audio recording of an in-person conversation, you must specifically inform all participants before recording under ORS 165.540(1)(c). This requirement applies even in public spaces. The Ninth Circuit confirmed this in its January 2025 en banc ruling.

Does Oregon's notification rule apply outdoors?

Yes. Oregon's all-party notification requirement for in-person conversations applies in all settings, including outdoors. The Ninth Circuit upheld this in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, finding that Oregon's interest in protecting conversational privacy extends to public spaces.

Can I live-stream in public in Oregon?

Silent live-streaming of video is generally legal. If your live stream captures in-person conversations with audio, the all-party notification rule applies. At rallies, public meetings, and similar events listed in ORS 165.540(6)(a), the unconcealed device exception permits recording with a visible device.

What is the unconcealed device exception in Oregon?

Under ORS 165.540(6)(a), you can record with a visible device at public meetings, hearings, press conferences, rallies, sporting events, and regularly scheduled classes without individually notifying each participant. The device must not be hidden, and the event must fall within the listed categories.

Updates

Fixed a vote-count error: the Ninth Circuit's en banc decision in Project Veritas v. Schmidt was 10-2, not 9-2.

Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes

Corrected the citation for Oregon's unconcealed-device recording exception (public meetings, rallies, press conferences, classes) from the unrelated ORS 165.540(2) to the correct ORS 165.540(6)(a) in all six places it appeared on the page.

Governing law re-checked for recent changes

Reviewed and approved by an editor

Sources and References

  1. ORS 165.540 - Obtaining Contents of Communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  2. ORS 133.739 - Civil Remedies for Willful Interception(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  3. ORS 41.910 - Intercepted Communications Inadmissible(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
  4. Project Veritas v. Schmidt - Ninth Circuit En Banc Opinion(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov).gov
  5. FAA Unmanned Aircraft Systems(faa.gov).gov
Share: