Recording Law for Video-Only Recording in Kentucky

In Kentucky, the law that restricts recording conversations is found in Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 526.010 and 526.020. These laws make it a felony to intercept any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto. The key detail is that the law focuses on intercepting communications involving audio, not merely 'audio recordings.' The definition of 'eavesdrop' in KRS 526.010 says it means to 'overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device.' Because silent video-only recording does not involve capturing any audio, it does not trigger these communication-interception laws.

Kentucky has no general law that restricts silent video-only recording, whether in public places or inside your own home. The state’s only video-specific crime is KRS 531.100, called video voyeurism. That law applies only when someone records another person’s sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of female breast without consent in a private setting, such as a restroom or changing room. It does not apply to general video recording of conversations, interactions, or public events. No Kentucky court has ever extended the eavesdropping law to cover video-only recording, and there is no statute or rule that creates a hidden-camera ban for ordinary situations.

Kentucky follows a one-party consent rule for communications covered by the eavesdropping statute. That means you can record a conversation you are part of without telling the other person. This rule is part of the definition of 'eavesdrop' in KRS 526.010, which prohibits intercepting any part of a wire or oral communication of others without the consent of at least one (1) party thereto by means of any electronic, mechanical or other device. If you are speaking directly to someone—whether in person or on the phone—you are one of the parties to that conversation, so recording it is allowed. However, this rule only applies to communications that fall within the statute’s scope. Silent video-only recording is not restricted by this law at all, because it does not involve capturing audio.

The only video-specific crime in Kentucky is KRS 531.100, known as video voyeurism. This law makes it a felony to record someone’s sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of female breast without consent in private settings. The law does not apply to general video recording of conversations, interactions, or public events. So, recording a dispute, a police encounter, or a public speech with a silent camera is not video voyeurism under Kentucky law.

Imagine you are at a public park and two people nearby start arguing loudly. Their voices carry far enough that others around them can easily hear what they are saying. You decide to record the argument with your phone’s camera, but you do not turn on the microphone. Under Kentucky law, this silent video recording is not restricted. The eavesdropping law only applies to communications involving audio, and the video voyeurism law does not apply because no one’s sexual conduct, genitals, or nipple of female breast is being recorded. This is true even though the people were not parties to the conversation you were recording.

Kentucky’s eavesdropping law does not treat recording inside your own home differently from recording in public. The one-party consent rule embedded in KRS 526.010 applies uniformly regardless of location. However, if you record inside someone else’s home without their consent, you could face a separate civil claim for invasion of privacy under common-law tort rules. That is a different legal issue from the eavesdropping statute. The eavesdropping law itself does not create a special exception or restriction for recording in your own home.

Kentucky’s one-party consent rule under KRS 526.010 applies to any wire or oral communication, regardless of location, but it does not create a blanket right to record all conversations. Kentucky courts apply a reasonable-expectation-of-privacy analysis under common-law invasion-of-privacy doctrine when a person records others’ conversations they are not part of, such as in Easterling v. Commonwealth, 606 S.W.3d 129 (Ky. 2019). That case addressed a related recording issue and held that a suspect had no reasonable expectation of privacy in a police-controlled interrogation room, but it did not adopt a general 'no expectation of privacy in public' rule. The statute itself contains no explicit 'public place' exception, so recording your own public disputes or interactions is not independently restricted by KRS 526.010/.020, but recording others’ private conversations without consent may still expose you to tort liability.

Kentucky’s eavesdropping statute does not bar a person from recording an on-duty police officer if the person is a direct party to the encounter, because the one-party consent rule in KRS 526.010 permits recording conversations to which the wearer is a party. However, the Sixth Circuit, which covers Kentucky, has not squarely recognized or rejected a general First Amendment right for ordinary citizens to record on-duty police performing public duties in public places. The closest Sixth Circuit authority, Hils v. Davis, 52 F.4th 997 (6th Cir. 2022), addressed a narrower context involving police officers recording their own misconduct-investigation interviews and is not directly on point. Because the right-to-record question remains open in the Sixth Circuit, practitioners should not assume a clearly established constitutional right exists, even though the eavesdropping statute itself does not bar the recording.