2. Photographic recordings allowed

The Alabama Open Meetings Act allows open meetings to be recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic, photographic or video reproduction provided the recording does not disrupt the conduct of the meeting. Ala. Code § 36-25A-6.

The Public Service Commission can prohibit recording at an administrative hearing under Ala. Code § 37-1-89. Casey v. Beeker, 2020 Ala. LEXIS 116, at *9 (Sep. 4, 2020).  Under the circumstances of this case, the “hearing” was not a “meeting” subject to recording because there was no “deliberation” among the Commissioners present.   The Commissioners heard testimony alongside an administrative law judge, asked no questions and only “listen[ed] passively”.

Although audio and video recording and photographing of public meetings is customarily done, the state OMA does not address this issue. If this issue arises, the press should argue there is a legal right to photograph or record such meetings, either implicit in the OMA, or arising from the common law or constitution. Be aware, however, that in the context of access to judicial proceedings, the courts have held there is a right to attend and observe court proceedings, but no right to photograph. Photography in the courts is considered a privilege governed by court rules. See Alaska Rules of Court, Administrative Rule 50. (Note that as the 2018 update to this Open Government Guide went to press, the Alaska Supreme Court was considering revisions to Rule 50.) There are cases from other jurisdictions dealing with the right to record or photograph at public meetings.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

Members of the press and the public have the right to make video recordings of meetings, so long as the mechanics of recording are not disruptive. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 83-213. Similarly, the media have the right to broadcast a meeting “live,” subject to reasonable limitations to prevent disruption or interference with the meeting. Ark. Op. Att’y Gen. No. 77-086.

Under both Acts, any person attending an open and public meeting of a state body or a legislative body of a local agency has the right to record and broadcast the proceedings with a video recorder or motion picture camera unless the body reasonably finds that the recording disrupts the proceedings by noise, illumination or obstruction of view. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 11124.1(a) and (c) (Bagley-Keene Act), 54953.5(a), 54953.6 (Brown Act).

No statutory provisions or case law on this point.

A meeting open to the public may be photographed, broadcast, or recorded for broadcast, subject to rules prescribed by the agency. Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-226. A temporary injunction can be issued pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. §1-226 to enjoin a violation of this provision.

Not addressed.

Not specifically addressed.

Reasonable rules and policies which ensure orderly conduct of a public meeting and require orderly behavior on the part of those persons attending may be adopted by any public agency whose meetings come within the purview of the Sunshine Law. As for the use of cameras by newsmen and other individuals, so long as their presence is not disruptive to the conduct of the meeting, they must be allowed since they aid in making an accurate report to members of the public who could not be present at that particular meeting. Government-in-the-Sunshine Manual 46 (2021); see Pinellas Cnty. School Bd. v. Suncam, Inc., 829 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).

Photographs are expressly permitted. O.C.G.A. § 50-14-1(c).

While the open meetings law allows any part of a meeting to be recorded "by means of a tape recorder or any other means of sonic reproduction," there is nothing that authorizes photographic recordings. See Haw. Rev. Stat. § 92-9(c). However, in the case of limited meetings, the board must videotape the meeting. Id. § 92-3.

See above.

The same principles applicable to sound recordings apply to photographic recording of public meetings. In practice, still cameras and video recording are commonplace. See Berry v. Peoples Broad. Corp., 547 N.E.2d 231, 234 (Ind. 1989) (approving of the following definition of “record”: “the reasonable use of recorders, cameras and any other recognized means of recording”).

Sound and photographic recordings are allowed. "The public may use cameras or recording devices at any open session." Public bodies may make rules to keep meetings "orderly, and free from interference." Iowa Code § 21.7.

Under K.S.A. 75-4318(e), the use of cameras is permitted subject to reasonable rules to ensure the orderly conduct of the proceedings at such meeting.

Photographic recordings are allowed. See Ky. Rev. Stat. 61.840.

The provision in La. R.S. 42:23 that “all of the proceedings in a public meeting may be video or tape recorded, filmed, or broadcast live,” allows members of the public, not just of the public body holding the meeting, to record the meeting.  Fernandez v. City of Kenner, 335 So.3d 951, 957 (La.App. 5th Cir. 2021).

Any person attending a public proceeding has a right to film the proceedings, or to make a live broadcast, provided that the filming or broadcasting does not interfere with the orderly conduct of proceedings. 1 M.R.S.A. § 404. Bodies and agencies are authorized to make reasonable rules and regulations governing these activities but may not prohibit them.

Public bodies must adopt and enforce reasonable rules to regulate videotaping, televising, photographing, broadcasting, or recording its meetings. § 3-303. Prohibiting recording is not a “reasonable rule” under the statute. 3 OMCB Opinions 356 (2003).

Anyone may “make a video or audio recording” of a public meeting or “transmit the meeting through any medium,” after notifying the chair, subject to reasonable requirements to avoid interfering with the conduct of the meeting. G.L. c. 30A, § 20(f). At the beginning of the meeting, the chair shall inform other attendees of any recordings. Id.

See above.

The Open Meeting Law is silent regarding photographic recordings. The issue is to be decided by each body.

Not addressed in Act.

See above.

Mont. Code Ann. § 2-3-211, guarantees attendees the right to take photographs, televise, or record meetings so long as these activities do not interfere with the conduct of the meeting.

All or any part of a meeting of a public body, except for closed sessions may be videotaped, televised, photographed, broadcast, or recorded by any person in attendance by means of a tape recorder, camera, video equipment, or any other means of pictorial or sonic reproduction or in writing.

A meeting may be recorded using any means of video reproduction so long as it does not interfere with the conduct of the meeting. NRS 241.035(3).

Yes. See 91-A:2,II.

While OPMA is silent on the issue of sound and photographic recording of public meetings, the courts have held that such a right to record is inherent in the law. Both sound and photographic recordings are therefore permitted subject to reasonable regulations, which generally should follow the New Jersey Supreme Court Guidelines for still and television camera and audio coverage of proceedings in the courts of New Jersey. See Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497, 509-513 (2007); Maurice River Township Board of Education v. Maurice River Township Teachers Ass'n, 187 N.J. Super. 566, 571, 455 A.2d 563 (Ch. Div. 1982), aff'd 193 N.J. Super. 488 (App. Div. 1984).

In Tarus v. Borough of Pine Hill, 189 N.J. 497 (2007) the New Jersey Supreme Court held there was a common law right to videotape a municipal council meeting subject to reasonable restrictions.

Reasonable efforts shall be made to accommodate the use of audio and video recording devices. NMSA 1978 § 10-15-1(A).  If meetings are recorded, the recording is a matter of public record and an agency cannot deny access to it on the basis that the recording was not originally required to be made.  See New Mexico Attorney General’s Office, Inspection of Public Records Act Compliance Guide, 26 (8th ed. 2015).

See e.g., Csorny v. Shoreham-Wading River Cent. Sch. Dist., 305 A.D.2d 83, 795 N.Y.S.2d 513 (2d Dep’t 2002) (A board of education adopted a resolution that allowed members of the public to make audio recordings of its meetings but prohibited the use of video cameras for that purpose. Petitioner filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the resolution. The trial court dismissed the action. The intermediate appellate court held that the board had the authority to reasonably regulate the public’s use of video cameras at its public meetings, but that it did not have the authority to impose a categorical ban on the use of cameras, which violated the Open Meetings Law.); Peloquin v. Arsenault, 162 Misc.2d 306, 616 N.Y.S.2d 716 (Sup. Ct. 1994) (board policy banning all cameras and camcorders violates the OML).

The Open Meetings Law provides, in G.S. § 143-318.14, that “any person” may photograph, film, tape-record, or otherwise reproduce any part of a meeting required to be open.

The statute does not address photography of meetings; the Ohio Attorney General has opined that videotaping is permissible; as a matter of custom, photography and video taping of meetings by news organizations is fairly common. 1988 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 88-087.

The court of appeals has raised questions about whether a city council has the authority to require citizens to "register in advance" if they intend to audio record a meeting, and to display the recording device on the village council table. Spratt v. Rickey, (4^th Dist.-Adams 1998), 1998 WL 144432.

The same court of appeals later opined that "a blanket prohibition on recording a public meeting . . . does not appear to be justified." Kline v. Davis, (4^th Dist.-Lawrence), 2001 WL 1590658.

Public bodies may audio tape or video tape their meetings. "Audio- or videotape recordings . . . are all legitimate means of satisfying the requirements of R.C. 121.22." White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 76 Ohio St. 3d 416, 667 N.E.2d 1223 (1996).

Any person may record “by videotape, audiotape or by any other method” a public meeting provided the act of recording does not interfere with the conduct of the meeting. 25 O.S. § 312.C.

The statute does not deal with this subject.

Recording devices include video cameras. Hain v. Bd. of Sch. Dirs. of Reading Sch. Dist., 641 A.2d 661, 664 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1994).

Audio broadcast of meeting allowed. The use of a microphone and speaker system to broadcast an agency’s proceedings to a separate facility where the public was provided with overflow seating arrangements does not violate the Act. See Sovich v. Shaugnessy, 705 A.2d 942, 946 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1998) (stating that Babac interpreted the Sunshine Act to require only the public’s ability to “observe” the open meeting). However, one lower court went so far as to hold that the Act requires meetings to be entirely “open” in the sense that the public is entitled not only to be present and observe the proceedings but also to hear them. See Landscape Products, Inc., v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of East Allen Twp., No. 1999-C-3703, Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County, at 6 (Nov. 23, 1999) (“We conclude that the right of the public to witness deliberation and decision making includes more than the right to be present and watch what is happening.”) (unreported case available at http://www.law.com/pa.html).

No specific provision in statute, but the Attorney General has given the opinion that videotaping open portions of a meeting is allowed, by extension of the reasoning relating to sound recordings in Belcher v. Mansi, 569 F.Supp. 379 (D. R.I. 1983), subject to reasonable restrictions set forth by the public body.  Op. Att’y Gen., OM 06-58 (Sept. 8, 2006), 2006 WL 4573885.

The act allows for recording by sonic or video recording, and while photo coverage is not specified, it is customarily allowed. S.C. Code Ann. § 30-4-90(c).

SDCL §1-25-11 allows a person to record a public meeting “through video or audio technology…as long as the recording is reasonable, obvious, and not disruptive.”

Yes, subject to reasonable restrictions.

A person in attendance may record all or any part of an open meeting by means of a tape recorder, video camera, or other means of aural or visual reproduction. Tex. Gov’t Code§ 551.023(a).

Utah Code section 52-4-203(5) does not distinguish between sound recordings and photographic recordings, and it appears that either is permissible as long as no disruption of the proceedings results.

Not addressed.

Any person may photograph or film any portion of a meeting required to be open. Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-3707.G.

(This section is blank. See the point above.)

A district judge allowed videotaping of a school board meeting, but the Supreme Court has not considered the issue.  Videotaping of public meeting is generally allowed in the state.