Recording Law for Streamers & Creators in Oregon

Oregon makes it a crime to record the audio of an in-person conversation unless every person taking part in that conversation knows they’re being recorded. The law doesn’t care whether the conversation happens in public, at a café, or on a sidewalk — the rule is the same. The statute bars obtaining ‘the whole or any part of a conversation by means of any device, contrivance, machine or apparatus’ if ‘not all participants in the conversation are specifically informed that their conversation is being obtained’ (ORS 165.540(1)(c)). This is a bright-line rule: if someone in the conversation isn’t told, it’s illegal even if others are fine with it. The rule applies to any device used to capture the audio, including phones, cameras, wearables, or anything else that captures sound. The only way around it is a narrow set of exceptions, which are spelled out in the statute and don’t include ‘it’s a public place.’

Oregon’s wiretap statute defines a ‘conversation’ as ‘the transmission between two or more persons of an oral communication which is not a telecommunication or a radio communication’ (ORS 165.535(1)). That definition expressly includes a communication occurring through a video conferencing program, which the state treats like an in-person conversation for recording purposes. Voice phone calls, by contrast, are treated differently under ORS 165.540(1)(a): Oregon allows one party to a phone call to record it without telling the other person. But if the call happens over video, all parties must be told. This matters for streamers who record video calls with guests — those calls require all-party notice, while a voice-only call does not. A 2021 amendment (Or Laws 2021, c.357) moved video-conferencing calls out of the one-party-friendly ‘telecommunication’/‘radio communication’ bucket and into the all-party-notice ‘conversation’ bucket, creating a real, current-law distinction between call types.

Oregon permits recording an on-duty police officer only if the recording is done openly from a lawful vantage point. The law allows recording if the officer is performing official duties and the recording is done openly — meaning the device is in plain view, the audio is within normal hearing range, and you’re in a place you’re legally allowed to be (ORS 165.540(5)(b)). Secret recording of an on-duty police officer does not qualify and remains a Class A misdemeanor (ORS 165.540(9)). Courts have upheld this exception, but the line between ‘open’ and ‘secret’ can be thin. If you’re unsure whether your recording meets the ‘open’ standard, assume it doesn’t.

Oregon has a broad exception for recordings made inside your own home. If you’re a subscriber to a telecommunication or radio service or an immediate family member of such a subscriber, you can record essentially any conversation happening in your home — even if you’re not part of it — without telling anyone. This includes recordings of other people’s conversations, as long as the device is in your home. Three Oregon appeals court decisions confirm this exception is read broadly: it covers your own conversations, family members’ conversations, and even conversations between others in your home. State v. Evensen, 298 Or App 294, 447 P3d 23 (2019) held the exception applies to subscribers and their family members who, in their homes, engage in conduct otherwise prohibited by ORS 165.540(1)(c), regardless of whether the subscribed-to service is utilized to obtain the conversation. State v. Rainey, 294 Or App 284, 431 P3d 98 (2018) held the exception turns on where the recording act occurs, not where the conversation itself takes place. Checkley v. Boyd, 198 Or App 110, 107 P3d 651 (2005) held the exception covers a person who was not a participant in the phone calls at all. But this exception is strictly limited to your own residence — it doesn’t apply to someone else’s home, a hotel room, or a friend’s apartment (ORS 165.540(3)).

Oregon’s wiretap statute regulates audio only and does not restrict silent video-only recording or photography. If you’re recording video or taking photos without capturing audio, the law doesn’t restrict you — even in public or private spaces. This means you can livestream or film people in public without their consent as long as you’re not recording their voices. The same goes for taking photos or videos in private spaces you have access to, like a store or a friend’s house. But if your video includes audio of a conversation, the all-party notice rule applies to that audio portion (ORS 165.535/165.540).

Oregon carves out a narrow, closed list of specific public or semi-public proceedings where the all-party notice rule does not apply. Under ORS 165.540(6)(a), the prohibition does not apply to recordings made using an unconcealed recording device at public or semi-public meetings such as hearings before governmental or quasi-governmental bodies, trials, press conferences, public speeches, rallies and sporting or other events; regularly scheduled classes or similar educational activities in public or private institutions; or private meetings or conferences if all others involved knew or reasonably should have known that the recording was being made. This is meaningfully narrower than a general public-place carve-out — recording a stranger’s outburst at a restaurant or on a sidewalk is not one of the enumerated proceeding types and would not qualify.

Beyond the core all-party notice rule and its narrow carve-outs, Oregon’s statute includes several additional exceptions that further limit when audio recording is prohibited. ORS 165.540(5)(a) exempts recordings made to capture evidence of a felony endangering life; ORS 165.540(5)(c) exempts recordings of custodial interviews at law-enforcement facilities under ORS 133.400/133.402; ORS 165.540(5)(d) exempts recordings made by uniformed officers’ body-worn and vehicle-mounted cameras; ORS 165.540(5)(e) exempts recordings made by taser-mounted devices; ORS 165.540(2)(a) exempts interceptions by telecommunication or radio company employees acting in that capacity and jail/corrections officials acting in that capacity; ORS 165.540(4) exempts broadcast reception; ORS 165.540(6)(b) exempts video-conference recordings made to capture evidence of unlawful activity in coordination with law enforcement, an attorney, or a regulatory body; and ORS 165.540(7)-(8) exempt amateur/citizens-band radio and public-safety radio interception. None of these exceptions are conditioned on a reasonable expectation of privacy; they are status-, location-, or purpose-based. The statute also separately exempts recordings made in the wearer’s own home under ORS 165.540(3), which permits a subscriber or family member to record essentially any conversation accessible in their home without notice or consent, regardless of who is speaking or whether the subscribed-to service is used to obtain the conversation.

Recording someone’s conversation without their consent in Oregon is a Class A misdemeanor under ORS 165.540(9), punishable by up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $6,250. The statute also prohibits the use or disclosure of any recording obtained in a manner prohibited by the statute (ORS 165.540(1)(e)), though the homeowner’s exception in ORS 165.540(3) removes that bar for lawfully obtained recordings made in the wearer’s own home. Enforcement is handled by prosecutors, and the Oregon Supreme Court has not squarely addressed many of the statute’s edge cases, leaving some interpretive gaps. The Oregon State Bar’s Formal Ethics Opinion No. 2005-156 (revised 2015) confirms that a lawyer who records in knowing disregard of the statute violates Oregon RPC 3.3(a)(5) and RPC 8.4(a)(2), but the opinion does not create a private right of action and does not address non-lawyers. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Project Veritas v. Schmidt, No. 22-35271 (Jan. 7, 2025) upheld the statute against First Amendment challenges, rejecting arguments that it should not reach recordings made in public places such as cafes and parks.