Vermont
Vermont Video Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited August 15, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of August 7, 2026. · 4 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Vermont permits video recording in public spaces without restriction. No state statute bars filming on streets, in parks, or at government meetings. The voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. 2605) makes it a crime to record someone's intimate areas without consent in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Vermont allows video recording in public without restriction. The state's voyeurism statute (13 V.S.A. 2605) creates limits in private settings, and the nonconsensual intimate images law (13 V.S.A. 2606) prohibits sharing private images without consent.
This guide covers public filming rights, voyeurism penalties, the Open Meeting Law, and how Vermont case law defines privacy expectations for video.
Public Video Recording
No Vermont statute prohibits video recording in public. You can film on streets, sidewalks, parks, government buildings, and at public events. Video-only recording does not implicate federal wiretap law, which focuses on audio interception.
Voyeurism (13 V.S.A. 2605)
It is a crime to intentionally view, photograph, film, or record a person's intimate areas without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
| Offense | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| First offense (viewing, photographing, filming, or recording under subsections (b), (d), (e)) | 2 years, $1,000 fine |
| Second or subsequent offense (subsections (b), (d), (e)) | 3 years, $5,000 fine |
| Displaying or disclosing a recorded image to a third party (subsection (c)) | 5 years, $5,000 fine |
Nonconsensual Intimate Images (13 V.S.A. 2606)
| Offense | Maximum Penalty |
|---|---|
| Disclosure without consent | 2 years, $2,000 fine |
| Disclosure for profit | 5 years, $10,000 fine |
2024 Deepfake Amendment
Act 161 of 2024 (H.878), signed June 6, 2024, amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to expressly cover digitized and synthetic intimate images. AI-generated deepfakes that depict an identifiable person in a sexual manner fall within the statute.
Federal TAKE IT DOWN Act
The TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, requires online platforms to remove nonconsensual intimate imagery -- including AI-generated deepfakes -- within 48 hours of a victim's request. The platform compliance duty took effect May 19, 2026. This operates alongside Vermont's 13 V.S.A. 2606 and provides an additional federal removal remedy.
Open Meeting Law
Vermont Act 133 of 2024 (2023, No. 133 (Adj. Sess.)) requires public bodies to record their meetings and post recordings for at least 30 days, and Act 51 of 2025 (2025, No. 51, Section 2, effective June 9, 2025) updated the recording and posting requirements for State public bodies. The current codified text is at 1 V.S.A. 312. The public can record selectboard, city council, school board, and state legislative meetings.
Privacy Expectations (Case Law)
- Public parking lot -- No privacy (State v. Brooks)
- Hospital ER -- No privacy (State v. Rheaume)
- Private home -- Privacy protected (State v. Geraw)
More Vermont Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Vermont Recording Laws
More Vermont Recording Topics
More Vermont Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Is it legal to video record someone in Vermont without consent?
In public, yes. In private places, 13 V.S.A. 2605 prohibits recording someone's intimate areas without consent where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
What are the penalties for voyeurism in Vermont?
First offense: up to 2 years and $1,000 fine. Second offense: up to 3 years and $5,000 fine. Displaying or disclosing a recorded image to a third party carries up to 5 years and a $5,000 fine.
Does Vermont law cover deepfake videos?
Yes. Act 161 of 2024 amended 13 V.S.A. 2606 to cover digitized and synthetic intimate images including AI-generated deepfakes. The federal TAKE IT DOWN Act, signed May 19, 2025, also requires platforms to remove such content within 48 hours of a victim's request; that platform duty took effect May 19, 2026.
Can I record a public meeting in Vermont?
Yes. Vermont's Open Meeting Law protects public recording of government meetings. Public bodies must also make their own recordings available.
Is sharing intimate images without consent illegal in Vermont?
Yes. Under 13 V.S.A. 2606, nonconsensual disclosure carries up to 2 years. Disclosure for profit carries up to 5 years. AI-generated deepfakes are expressly covered under the 2024 amendment.
Can I use video as evidence in Vermont court?
Yes. Lawfully recorded video is generally admissible. Authentication, relevance, and chain of custody requirements apply.
Updates
Corrected the federal TAKE IT DOWN Act's signing date from May 19, 2026 to the actual May 19, 2025 (the 2026 date is the platform compliance deadline, which has now passed), and added a direct citation to the Vermont Open Meeting Law's recording-and-posting statute (1 V.S.A. 312) supporting the Act 133/Act 51 recording-duration claims.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
Corrected the voyeurism penalty table: the 5-year/$5,000 tier applies to displaying or disclosing a recorded image to a third party, not to offenses involving minors (the statute has no minors-specific enhancement).
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.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 59: Lewdness and Prostitution, Subchapter: LEWD AND INDECENT CONDUCT
§ 2605VoyeurismIn forcecited in 14 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Bona fide private investigator or bona fide security guard” means an individual lawfully providing services, whether licensed or unlicensed, pursuant to 26 V.S.A. §§ 3151 and 3151a. (2) “Female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) “Circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her intimate areas would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. This definition includes circumstances in which a person knowingly disrobes in front of another, but does not expect nor give consent for the other person to photograph, film, or record his or her intimate areas. (4) “Intimate areas” means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of a person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-31 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. DEVOID (2010) the Vermont Supreme Court reversed an attempted voyeurism conviction under section 2605(b)(1), holding the evidence could not show the defendant, on the ground, was able to see the complainant's intimate areas as the statute defines them, so looking at her window was not an overt act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. DEVOID (Supreme Court of Vermont 2010, 188 Vt. 445)✓A man stared up at a second-floor shower window from the parking lot; a photograph taken inside the bathroom showed the complainant's intimate areas, as the statute defines them, were below the sill, so the court reversed his attempted-voyeurism conviction as unsupported.
- State v. Squiers (Supreme Court of Vermont 2006, 179 Vt. 388)“…r any object into the genital or anal opening of another”); 13 V.S.A. § 2605(a)(4) & (b) (prohibiting the viewing or…”
- State v. Beaudoin (Supreme Court of Vermont 2008, 185 Vt. 164)“…ter 1 includes §§ 2601 and 2602 and a section on voyeurism, 13 V.S.A. § 2605. Section 2601 makes it a felony to enga…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
§ 2606Disclosure of sexually explicit images without consentIn forcecited in 9 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Disclose” includes transfer, publish, distribute, exhibit, or reproduce. (2) “Harm” means physical injury, financial injury, or serious emotional distress. (3) “Nude” means any one or more of the following uncovered parts of the human body: (A) genitals; (B) pubic area; (C) anus; or (D) post-pubescent female nipple. (4) “Sexual conduct” shall have the same meaning as in section 2821 of this title. (5) “Visual image” includes a photograph, film, videotape, recording, or digital reproduction, including an image created or altered by digitization. (6) “Digitization” means the process of altering an image in a realistic manner utilizing an image or images of a person, including images other than the person depicted, or computer-generated images. (b)(1) A person violates this section if the person knowingly discloses a visual image of an identifiable person who is nude or who is engaged in sexual conduct, without the person’s consent, with the intent to harm, harass, intimidate, threaten, or coerce the person depicted, and the disclosure would cause a reasonable person to suffer harm.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 3 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2024
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. Rebekah S. VanBuren (Supreme Court of Vermont 2019, 2018 VT 95)“…s statute banning disclosure of nonconsensual pornography. 13 V.S.A. § 2606. We conclude that the statute is const…”
- Ava Morton v. Mayah Young (Supreme Court of Vermont 2023, 298 A.3d 230)“…ute criminalizing disclosure of nonconsensual pornography, 13 V.S.A. § 2606, did not violate the First Amendment. I…”
- corriveau v. windham (Vermont Superior Court 2024)“…ithout saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy.”); 13 V.S.A. § 2606(e)(2) (explicitly listing “a preliminar…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 418 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- 13 V.S.A. 2605 -- Voyeurism(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 13 V.S.A. 2606 -- Nonconsensual Disclosure of Intimate Images(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Act 161 of 2024 (H.878) -- Deepfake Amendment(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- Vermont Open Meeting Law (1 V.S.A. 310-314)(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)