Recording Law for Streamers & Creators in New Hampshire

New Hampshire requires everyone in a conversation to agree before you can record their voices. This applies whether the conversation happens in person or over the phone. The rule comes from New Hampshire’s wiretapping law, RSA 570-A:2, which makes it a crime to intercept audio without the consent of all parties. The law defines an "oral communication" as any spoken words where the speaker has a reasonable expectation that the conversation won’t be intercepted. If someone speaks loudly in a public place so that bystanders can hear without any device, courts may treat that speech as not protected—but this isn’t clearly settled in New Hampshire. RSA 570-A:1, II’s single-prong reasonable-expectation test applies to in-person speech, while phone/electronic calls are covered categorically under RSA 570-A:1, I with no gate at all. For streamers and creators, this means you cannot record audio of bystanders, guests, or anyone else unless you get their permission first. Even if you’re streaming live, pausing to ask for consent is the safest approach.

If your camera records only images and no sound, New Hampshire law does not restrict it. The wiretapping statute RSA 570-A focuses on audio interception, so video-only recording is not covered. The moment your device captures any audio—even if it’s just background noise—you’re recording an "oral communication" and must get consent from everyone speaking. This is why many streamers disable audio recording when they’re in public or ask people nearby if it’s okay before turning on the mic. If you’re using a wearable camera or a phone that records ambient sound automatically, treat the audio track as requiring consent even if your main focus is video. Separately, RSA 644:9 restricts silent video in private places like bathrooms or bedrooms regardless of audio, but that statute is not part of Chapter 570-A and generally does not apply to public or semi-public interactions.

Even though New Hampshire has strict all-party consent rules, you have the right to record police officers performing their duties in public. First Circuit court rulings—Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) and Gericke v. Begin (2014)—established that openly recording police is protected by the First Amendment. Gericke arose directly from a New Hampshire traffic stop in Weare, and the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to the officers, confirming the right to record. These cases build on the principle that officers performing public duties in public may lack a reasonable expectation of privacy for their on-duty statements, so such recording (including audio) generally falls outside the 'oral communication' definition and outside RSA 570-A’s consent requirement in the first place. The best practice is to record openly, stay at a safe distance, and avoid interfering with police actions. This exception does not mean you can secretly record police—only that you can record openly without fear of arrest for the act of recording itself.

New Hampshire does not give you a free pass to record conversations just because you’re in someone’s home. The all-party consent rule applies the same way indoors as it does outdoors. The only narrow exception is for extension telephones used in the home: State v. Telles, 139 N.H. 344, 653 A.2d 554 (1995) interprets RSA 570-A:1, IV(a)(1) as creating an 'absolute exception for extension telephones used in the home by the user or subscriber,' allowing a household member to listen in on a phone call without consent—but this does not cover in-person conversations. If you’re invited into someone’s home for a stream or interview, ask everyone present if they’re okay with being recorded before turning on your camera or microphone. If someone objects, stop recording or leave. There’s no legal gray area here: RSA 570-A:2 applies the same way in private homes as it does in public.

Recording someone’s voice without their consent in New Hampshire can lead to serious consequences. Under RSA 570-A:2, it’s a Class B felony to intercept an oral communication or telecommunication without all parties’ consent. A party-to-the-call interception done without required Attorney General approval is a misdemeanor, making the penalty class 'mixed.' You could also face a civil lawsuit under RSA 570-A:11, with potential damages of $100 per day or $1,000 (whichever is greater), plus punitive damages and attorney fees. The statute includes a good-faith defense: if you genuinely thought you had consent or reasonably believed the communication was not protected, a court may reduce penalties, but relying on that defense is risky—getting explicit consent in advance is the only way to be sure you’re protected. The law also provides a defense if the interception was authorized by the consent of all parties to the communication.

Say you’re streaming from a park and decide to walk around asking questions to bystanders. You turn on your mic to capture their answers. Under New Hampshire law, this is illegal unless you first get their permission to record their voices because whether such speech is protected turns on whether the speaker had a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception under RSA 570-A:1, II. If you don’t ask, you’re violating RSA 570-A:2. Even if you’re just trying to be spontaneous, pausing to say, "Is it okay if I record your voice for my stream?" is the only way to stay within the law. If someone refuses, you must turn off the microphone or stop recording. The same rule applies if you’re interviewing a friend in your backyard—ask everyone present before hitting record. If you’re recording video only with no audio, RSA 570-A does not apply, but be mindful of RSA 644:9 if you enter a private area like a backyard shed.

New Hampshire’s gate for in-person speech is built into the statutory definition of a protected communication. RSA 570-A:1, II defines "oral communication" as "any verbal communication uttered by a person who has a reasonable expectation that the communication is not subject to interception, under circumstances justifying such expectation." This single-prong, Katz-style reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test applies to the circumstances of the utterance (e.g., volume, setting, audience present) rather than a bright-line public/private-place rule. State v. McLellan, 144 N.H. 602, 744 A.2d 611 (1999) construes this standard through the lens of RSA 644:9(II)’s definition of "private place," illustrating how New Hampshire courts apply the same expectation analysis across contexts. No New Hampshire Supreme Court opinion squarely applying this clause to a concrete loud/overheard speech fact pattern could be located, so the issue remains appropriately hedged.