Oregon
Oregon Video Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent Rules
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. · 7 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content

In Oregon, silent video recording is generally legal and falls outside ORS 165.540. Adding audio to video of an in-person conversation requires notifying all participants under ORS 165.540. Separately, ORS 163.700 prohibits recording video in bathrooms, dressing rooms, and similar private spaces regardless of whether audio is captured.
Oregon's video recording laws involve two separate legal frameworks. The state's wiretapping statute, ORS 165.540, governs audio recording and applies its split consent framework whenever video captures sound. Oregon's invasion of personal privacy statutes, ORS 163.700 and ORS 163.701, address visual recording in private settings regardless of whether audio is captured.
This guide covers how both frameworks apply to video recording in Oregon in 2026, including surveillance cameras, personal video, body cameras, and video calls.
How Oregon Law Treats Video Recording
Silent Video vs. Video With Audio
The distinction between silent video and video with audio is critical in Oregon.
Silent video recording (no audio captured) is not governed by ORS 165.540. The wiretapping statute specifically addresses the interception of communications, meaning audio. A video camera that records only visual images does not "obtain" a conversation and therefore does not trigger the notification or consent requirements of the wiretapping law.
Video recording with audio falls under ORS 165.540's split consent framework:
- If the video captures an in-person conversation, all participants must be specifically informed under ORS 165.540(1)(c)
- If the video captures a telephone or electronic communication (such as a video call), one-party consent applies under ORS 165.540(1)(a)
- An ordinary video conferencing call is treated as a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c) by default, so recording it secretly risks a Class A misdemeanor; the narrow ORS 165.540(6)(b) exception applies only when the recording is made to capture alleged unlawful activity in coordination with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulator
The Privacy Statutes: ORS 163.700 and 163.701
Even without audio, video recording can be illegal in Oregon when it invades personal privacy. These statutes operate independently from the wiretapping law.
ORS 163.700 (Invasion of Personal Privacy in the Second Degree) makes it a Class A misdemeanor to knowingly record a photograph, motion picture, videotape, or other visual recording of another person in a state of nudity without consent when the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes:
- Recording in bathrooms, restrooms, and showers
- Recording in dressing rooms, locker rooms, and fitting rooms
- Recording in tanning booths and similar enclosed spaces
- Recording under or through clothing ("upskirting")
- Any visual recording of intimate areas where a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
ORS 163.701 (Invasion of Personal Privacy in the First Degree) elevates the offense to a Class C felony when:
- The recording captures the other person in a full state of nudity, made without consent in a place where the person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
- The person recording has a prior conviction for invasion of personal privacy, public indecency, private indecency, or a sex crime (or an equivalent offense in another jurisdiction)
A Class C felony in Oregon carries up to 5 years in prison and a fine of up to $125,000. The court may also designate this offense as a sex crime requiring registration under ORS 163A.005.
Video Surveillance Cameras in Oregon

Home Security Cameras
Oregon homeowners can install video surveillance cameras on their property. Key rules:
- Cameras can record your own property, including your yard, driveway, porch, and entryways
- Cameras should not be aimed to record inside a neighbor's home or private spaces
- Adding audio recording to outdoor cameras triggers ORS 165.540's notification requirements for in-person conversations
- Indoor cameras in your own home are generally permitted, but you must consider the privacy rights of guests and household members
Business Surveillance
Businesses in Oregon can use video surveillance cameras for security, loss prevention, and safety monitoring. Guidelines include:
- Cameras are permitted in common areas such as sales floors, lobbies, parking lots, and warehouses
- Cameras must never be placed in bathrooms, changing rooms, break rooms used for changing, or other areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy
- If cameras capture audio, the all-party notification requirement under ORS 165.540(1)(c) applies to in-person conversations within range
- Businesses should post visible signage indicating that video surveillance is in use
- Employees should receive written notice of surveillance policies
Doorbell Cameras
Doorbell cameras like Ring and Nest Hello are widely used in Oregon. These devices typically capture both video and audio. Because the audio component records in-person conversations at your doorstep, the all-party notification requirement technically applies. However, the unconcealed device exception in ORS 165.540(6)(a) may apply when the doorbell camera is clearly visible.
Best practices for doorbell cameras in Oregon:
- Choose a visible installation that makes it obvious a camera is present
- Post signage near the doorbell indicating audio and video recording
- Review your device's audio recording settings and consider disabling audio if notification is impractical
- Be aware that recordings of conversations with delivery drivers, solicitors, or neighbors may trigger the notification requirement
Recording Video in Public Places

General Rules for Public Video Recording
You have a broad right to record video in public places in Oregon. The First Amendment protects the right to film in areas open to the public, including streets, sidewalks, parks, government buildings (in public areas), and businesses open to the public.
However, Oregon's split consent framework adds a layer of complexity:
- Silent video in public: Generally legal without restriction
- Video with audio capturing in-person conversations in public: Requires all-party notification under ORS 165.540(1)(c), even in a public setting
The Ninth Circuit's January 2025 en banc ruling in Project Veritas v. Schmidt confirmed that Oregon's notification requirement extends to public spaces. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 6, 2025, making this constitutional ruling final. You cannot secretly record conversations with audio in a park, on a sidewalk, or in a restaurant, even though those are public locations.
Filming Events and Gatherings
The unconcealed device exception under ORS 165.540(6)(a) permits recording at public and semipublic events when the recording device is not hidden. This includes:
- Public meetings and government hearings
- Press conferences and public speeches
- Rallies, protests, and demonstrations
- Sporting events
- Regularly scheduled classes and seminars
At these events, you can record video with audio using a visible camera without individually notifying each person present.
Video Calls and Conferencing

Oregon's Video Conferencing Exception
Oregon law does not create a blanket one-party-consent rule for video conferencing. A video call is treated as a "conversation" under ORS 165.540(1)(c), the same all-party notification rule that applies to an in-person conversation. This means:
- Recording a Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, or similar call without telling every participant risks a Class A misdemeanor, even if you use the platform's built-in recording feature
- A narrow exception under ORS 165.540(6)(b) allows recording a video call without notifying every participant only when the person recording does so with the intent to capture alleged unlawful activity, and is a law enforcement officer or acting in coordination with one, is acting in coordination with an attorney or a regulator, or reasonably believes the recording may be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding
- A separate exception under ORS 165.540(6)(a) covers video-conferenced proceedings that fall into specific categories, such as public or semipublic meetings and regularly scheduled classes
Many video conferencing platforms display a recording indicator to all participants by default. That platform notification can help satisfy Oregon's notification requirement, but it does not replace the underlying legal obligation to inform every participant before recording.
Third-Party Recording of Video Calls
Using a third-party tool (not the platform's built-in feature) to record a video call does not change the underlying rule. Whether you use the platform's own recording feature or an external screen recorder, an ordinary video call remains a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c), so all participants must be specifically informed before you record.
Body Cameras and Wearable Video Devices
Personal Body Cameras
Wearing a body camera or smart glasses with video capability in Oregon follows the same split consent framework:
- Silent video only: Generally legal in public spaces
- Video with audio capturing in-person conversations: Requires all-party notification
Simply wearing a visible camera does not satisfy the notification requirement for private conversations. The unconcealed device exception applies to the specific categories of events listed in ORS 165.540(6)(a), not to everyday interactions.
Law Enforcement Body Cameras
Oregon law enforcement officers increasingly use body-worn cameras. The Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training provides guidance on body camera policies. Law enforcement recordings are governed by both ORS 165.540's law enforcement exceptions and individual department policies.
Citizens have the right to make their own video recordings of police officers performing their duties in public, independent of whether officers are using body cameras.
Penalties for Illegal Video Recording in Oregon
Wiretapping Violations (Video With Audio)
Recording video with audio in violation of ORS 165.540 is a Class A misdemeanor:
| Penalty | Maximum |
|---|---|
| Jail time | Up to 364 days |
| Fine | Up to $6,250 |
| Probation | Up to 5 years |
Civil remedies under ORS 133.739 include actual damages (minimum $100/day or $1,000), punitive damages, and attorney fees.
Invasion of Privacy Violations (Visual Recording)
| Offense | Classification | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| ORS 163.700 (Second Degree) | Class A misdemeanor | 364 days jail, $6,250 fine |
| ORS 163.701 (First Degree) | Class C felony | 5 years prison, $125,000 fine |
First-degree invasion of personal privacy may also result in sex offender registration requirements under Oregon law.
Evidentiary Consequences
Under ORS 41.910, video recordings that include illegally intercepted audio are inadmissible in Oregon court proceedings.
Oregon Recording Laws by Topic
Phone Call Recording | Audio Recording | Video Recording | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras
More Oregon Recording Topics
More Oregon Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record video in Oregon without audio?
Yes, in most situations. Silent video recording is not covered by Oregon's wiretapping statute ORS 165.540. However, you cannot record video in private areas where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as bathrooms, dressing rooms, or locker rooms, under ORS 163.700.
Is it legal to have security cameras with audio in Oregon?
Security cameras that capture audio of in-person conversations trigger the all-party notification requirement under ORS 165.540(1)(c). Every person whose conversation is recorded must be specifically informed. Video-only security cameras do not trigger this requirement.
Can I record a Zoom call in Oregon?
Only if every participant is specifically informed first, or a narrow exception applies. Oregon treats a Zoom call as a conversation under ORS 165.540(1)(c), so secretly recording it risks a Class A misdemeanor. ORS 165.540(6)(b) exempts recording only when you intend to capture alleged unlawful activity and are a law enforcement officer, are coordinating with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulator, or reasonably believe the recording will be used as evidence in a judicial or administrative proceeding.
What are the penalties for video voyeurism in Oregon?
Invasion of personal privacy in the second degree under ORS 163.700 is a Class A misdemeanor with up to 364 days in jail and a $6,250 fine. If the recording captures a full state of nudity, or the person recording has a prior conviction for invasion of privacy, indecency, or a sex crime, the charge rises to a Class C felony under ORS 163.701, carrying up to 5 years in prison and a $125,000 fine, with possible sex offender registration.
Can I use a doorbell camera in Oregon?
Yes, but doorbell cameras that record audio of conversations at your door may trigger the all-party notification requirement. Post visible signage indicating that audio and video recording is in use. Consider disabling the audio feature if providing notification is impractical.
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected repeated claims that Zoom/Teams video calls are blanket one-party-consent recordings, corrected the fabricated dissemination/under-18 felony triggers for first-degree invasion of personal privacy, and fixed three citations of Oregon's unconcealed-device exception from the unrelated ORS 165.540(2) to the correct ORS 165.540(6)(a).
Repaired an MDX compile break that was rendering the entire article body as a placeholder: a KeyTakeaways list item contained raw, unescaped double quotes around the word "conversations," which is invalid inside the item's JSON string and made next-mdx-remote fail to compile the whole page. Also corrected a backwards parenthetical (nudity is a narrower category within ORS 163.700's broader "intimate area" definition, not a broader standard), matching the same correction made on the sibling security-cameras and voyeurism pages.
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 165: Offenses Involving Fraud or Deception
§ 165.540Obtaining contents of communicationsIn forcecited in 19 of our articles
(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 or 133.726 or subsections (2) to (8) of this section, a person may not: (a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a telecommunication or a radio communication to which the person is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant. (b) Tamper with the wires, connections, boxes, fuses, circuits, lines or any other equipment or facilities of a telecommunication or radio communication company over which messages are transmitted, with the intent to obtain unlawfully the contents of a telecommunication or radio communication to which the person is not a participant. (c) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or otherwise, if not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 76 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. Fleetwood (2000) applied ORS 165.540 to body wire evidence, holding that words spoken into a telephone are a telecommunication under subsection (1)(a) and that the (5)(a)(B) exception fails unless the officer or the officer's agent shares reciprocally in the conversation, so the recordings were inadmissible.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Klein (Oregon Supreme Court 2012, 352 Or. 302)“…eing 3 recorded. Conversations recorded in violation of ORS 165.540 are not admissible in 4 court excep…”
- North Pacific Lumber Co. v. Oliver (Oregon Supreme Court 1979, 286 Or. 639)✓A lumber wholesaler secretly monitored traders' calls; on de novo review the court said the practice may have violated ORS 165.540 but refused to rest unclean hands on it, since the ex-employee's calls were never monitored. The employer's noncompete suit failed on other grounds.
- State v. Fleetwood (Oregon Supreme Court 2000, 331 Or. 511)✓A detective wired an informant and recorded the suspect's side of a phone call and his talks with his mother and a juvenile seller; the court held those interceptions violated ORS 165.540(1)(a) and (1)(c) because the informant was not a participant, and upheld suppression.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Recording Laws (2026): Hybrid One-Party and All-Party Rules, Oregon Voyeurism and Hidden Camera Laws: Offenses, Penalties, and Protections, Oregon Audio Recording Laws: Split Consent Rules for Conversations and Calls
Oregon Revised Statutes, Chapter 163: Offenses Against Persons
§ 163.700Invasion of personal privacy in the second degreeIn forcecited in 11 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the second degree if: (a)(A) For the purpose of arousing or gratifying the sexual desire of the person, the person is in a location to observe another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) The other person is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person’s intimate area without the consent of the other person; and (B) The person being recorded has a reasonable expectation of privacy concerning the intimate area. (2) As used in this section and ORS 163.701: (a) “Intimate area” means nudity, or undergarments that are being worn by a person and are covered by clothing.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 16 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):State v. McQueen (2020) held that a person who intentionally exposes an intimate area to another has no reasonable expectation of privacy as to that person under ORS 163.700(1)(b)(B), reversing a conviction for secretly recording consensual sex. State v. Mayes (2008) read the nudity definition as reaching only post-pubescent people.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712)“…wrong, and likely a criminal invasion of her privacy under ORS 163.700. To the extent that our case law regard…”
- State v. Rodriguez-Ganegar (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2003, 186 Or. App. 530)“…hat people were making love in it, the person would violate ORS 163.700(1)(b) by looking into the room in the m…”
- State v. Mayes (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2008, 220 Or. App. 385)✓A man hid cameras in workplace and office restrooms and secretly recorded women and two girls, ages nine and seven. The court held the nudity definition in ORS 163.700 reaches only post-pubescent people, measured from the onset of puberty, and reversed the seven-year-old's count.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Consent, Oregon Medical Recording Laws: Patient Rights, HIPAA, and Consent, Oregon School Recording Laws: Student, Parent, and Teacher Rights
§ 163.701Invasion of personal privacy in the first degreeIn forcecited in 6 of our articles
(1) Except as provided in ORS 163.702, a person commits the crime of invasion of personal privacy in the first degree if: (a)(A) The person knowingly makes or records a photograph, motion picture, videotape or other visual recording of another person in a state of nudity without the consent of the other person; and (B) At the time the visual recording is made or recorded the person being recorded is in a place and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy; or (b) The person violates ORS 163.700 and, at the time of the offense, has a prior conviction for: (A) Invasion of personal privacy in any degree, public indecency, private indecency or a sex crime as defined in ORS 163A.005; or (B) The statutory counterpart of an offense described in subparagraph (A) of this paragraph in another jurisdiction. (2)(a) Invasion of personal privacy in the first degree is a Class C felony. (b) The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission shall classify invasion of personal privacy in the first degree as crime category 6 of the sentencing guidelines grid of the commission.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-29 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at oregonlegislature.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Parra-Sanchez (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2023, 324 Or. App. 712)“…y, a Class A misdemeanor (ORS 163.700) or Class C fel- ony (ORS 163.701), but intended overt voyeurs to be guil…”
- State v. McQueen (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2020, 307 Or. App. 540)“…acknowl- edges that his conduct was “likely criminal” under ORS 163.701, the statute setting forth the crime of…”
- State v. Murphy (Court of Appeals of Oregon 2022, 319 Or. App. 330)“…was convicted of first-degree invasion of personal privacy, ORS 163.701, based on an incident involving his 15-…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Oregon Security Camera Laws: Installation, Audio, and Privacy Rules, Oregon Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Oregon Surveillance Camera Laws (2026 Guide)
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- ORS 165.540 - Obtaining Contents of Communications(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 163.700 - Invasion of Personal Privacy in the Second Degree(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 163.701 - Invasion of Personal Privacy in the First Degree(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 133.739 - Civil Remedies for Willful Interception(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- ORS 41.910 - Intercepted Communications Inadmissible(oregonlegislature.gov).gov
- Project Veritas v. Schmidt - Ninth Circuit En Banc Opinion (Jan. 2025)(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov).gov
- Oregon DPSST(oregon.gov).gov