Recording Law for Phone & Video Calls in Georgia

Georgia lets you record a phone or video call as long as you are one of the people talking. That’s because Georgia follows a one-party consent rule for audio recordings. The law says it’s not illegal to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication if you are part of the conversation or have the okay from at least one person in the call. This rule comes from O.C.G.A. § 16-11-66(a), which states: “Nothing in Code Section 16-11-62 shall prohibit a person from intercepting a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception.” So if you’re on the call, you can record the audio without telling the other person first.

Recording video of someone’s activities is treated differently in Georgia. If the activity happens in a private place where there’s a reasonable expectation of privacy, you need the okay from everyone being recorded. The law defines a “private place” as a place where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy, found in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-60(3). O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) makes it illegal to use a device to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another person in a private place without the consent of all persons observed. This means if you’re recording a video meeting from your home office or filming a conversation in someone else’s house, everyone in the video must agree first. The statute’s text is explicit: it bars recording the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view without the consent of all persons observed.

Georgia’s video recording rules only apply in private places. If the activity is in a public place—like a street, store aisle, or sidewalk—there’s no consent requirement under the wiretapping law. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in Gary v. State, 338 Ga. App. 403, 790 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016), docket A16A0666, that O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) does not criminalize the observation or filming of an individual who is in a public place. The court held that § 16-11-62(2) does not criminalize the observation or filming of an individual who is in a public place, reversing a conviction where the victim was filmed in a publicly accessible grocery store. So if you’re recording a video call from a park or filming a conversation on a public sidewalk, you don’t need anyone’s permission under Georgia’s wiretapping statute.

Homeowners get a break under Georgia law, but the exception’s history is more complicated than it appears. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2)(C) allows a resident, owner, security-system subscriber, or family member to record activities occurring in their own home without the consent of all persons observed. This exception applies only to your own home—not someone else’s house, a hotel room, or a rented space—and only to visual recording of activities, not audio conversations. However, the exception’s validity was once in doubt. In 2000, the Georgia General Assembly enacted two conflicting bills amending the same code section: House Bill 1576 added the curtilage exception, while Senate Bill 316 amended § 16-11-62 without including it. The Georgia Supreme Court held in Rutter v. Rutter, 294 Ga. 1, 749 S.E.2d 657 (2013), that the two 2000 acts were in irreconcilable conflict and that the curtilage exception did not survive. The exception was only restored by the 2022 SB 539 amendment, meaning there was no valid home-recording exception from 2013 until July 1, 2022. Today, the exception is codified in § 16-11-62(2)(C) and permits homeowners to record activity on their property without all-party consent.

Recording without consent in a private place is a felony in Georgia. The penalty can be 1 to 5 years in prison, a fine up to $10,000, or both, as set out in O.C.G.A. § 16-11-69. This applies to both audio and video recordings made illegally. If someone sues you over an illegal recording, they may also have a claim under Georgia’s invasion-of-privacy tort law, which allows for civil damages. The statute’s text is clear: “A person convicted of the offense of eavesdropping, surveillance, or interception of communication shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years, a fine not to exceed $10,000.00, or both.”

Imagine you’re on a Zoom meeting with coworkers to discuss a project. You’re at home, so it’s a private place. If you record the call, you’re fine under the one-party rule for audio because you’re part of the conversation. But if your coworker is also on camera and you record their video without telling them, you could be breaking the law. That’s because Georgia requires all-party consent for video recording of activities in private places. If you want to record the video, you need to let everyone know first. If you’re just recording the audio, you’re covered under the one-party rule. The distinction matters: § 16-11-62(1) governs clandestine recording of private conversations, while § 16-11-62(2) governs non-consensual recording of activities, and the latter requires consent for video even in your own home.

Georgia has no law that specifically prohibits citizens from recording on-duty police in public. The wiretapping statute only reaches conduct in a private place out of public view, so recording police performing duties in public view falls outside the statute entirely. Beyond that statutory gap, the Eleventh Circuit has recognized a First Amendment right to record police in public. In Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 2000), the court held that the First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property, and specifically, a right to record matters of public interest, including police conduct, subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions. However, this right is not absolute. In Crocker v. Beatty, 995 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2021), the Eleventh Circuit held that a deputy who seized a bystander’s phone after he photographed a crash scene was entitled to qualified immunity because Smith’s right-to-record holding came without much explanation and did not give officers fair warning of the right’s precise contours. So while the abstract First Amendment right to record police in public stands, individual officers who interfere with or retaliate against recording frequently escape civil damages liability via qualified immunity.

Silent video-only recording is independently restricted in Georgia, but only in a private place and out of public view. O.C.G.A. § 16-11-62(2) makes it unlawful for any person, through use of any device, without the consent of all persons observed, to observe, photograph, or record the activities of another which occur in any private place and out of public view. This applies regardless of whether audio is captured—it governs activities, i.e., images/video, separately from § 16-11-62(1)’s treatment of private conversations, i.e., audio. This means video-only recording of activities in a private place requires all-party consent (stricter than the one-party audio rule), while video-only recording in a public place (e.g., most street disputes, a traffic stop on a public roadway) is not reached by the statute at all, per Gary v. State, 338 Ga. App. 403, 790 S.E.2d 150 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016), docket A16A0666.