9

I ran across some YouTube video that is a recording of a court webcam that has a "do not record" mention. This made me wonder: is that legally binding? I.e., is the YouTuber allowed to record and share the recording of that court webcam? I'm mostly interested in the United States.

enter image description here

(Screenshot from https://youtu.be/7hr9xn1_1_w)

Improve this question
3
  • 7
    It looks like the person on the right has put DO NOT RECORD in their name. That's not the same as the webcam itself adding that request.
    – Kate Gregory
    Commented Nov 9 at 15:46
  • 2
    This looks more like a recording of a Zoom meeting to me.
    – Barmar
    Commented Nov 9 at 16:41
  • 9
    @KateGregory The person on the right is the judge, though, so it's probably simply the easiest place for the court to place the warning. It's not some random attendee trying to add their own conditions.
    – SomeoneSomewhereSupportsMonica
    Commented Nov 9 at 23:29

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
10

Recording court proceedings is generally prohibited no matter whether an annotation is displayed on a video feed of the proceeding. For example, see s. 136 of the Ontario Courts of Justice Act.

These sorts of prohibitions apply whether in the courtroom, attending remotely, or observing from a publicly broadcast1 stream.

So, it's not the words on the broadcast that would be legally binding. The words on any broadcast would just reflect a pre-existing legal prohibition.

1. I'm using the word "broadcast" as used by the courts to describe this activity. This is not necessarily the same sense of "broadcast" used in broadcasting or telecommunications law.

Improve this answer
6
  • Presumably those courts are not broadcast over the internet?
    – User65535
    Commented Nov 9 at 20:02
  • 1
    @User65535 zoom meetings are not broadcast. You either get invited, or if it's a public meeting (similarly to public court rooms) you're subject to certain terms and conditions which you acknowledge or a made aware of when joining.
    – littleadv
    Commented Nov 9 at 22:52
  • The publicly broadcast stream is what I meant by "broadcast", and the answer now confirms the situation. Running ffmpeg while watching the stream would be illegal. I am surprised.
    – User65535
    Commented Nov 9 at 23:21
  • 4
    @User65535 note that this is not actually a public broadcast, from technical standpoint. If you click on the link you will have a notice telling you that recording is prohibited. You will be recognized and added to the list of the recipients of the transmission. The actual delivery is not "public broadcast". Public broadcast is what your local TV or radio stations are doing.
    – littleadv
    Commented Nov 9 at 23:41
  • @User65535: if the person recording is in another US state, or outside the US, are you sure it is still illegal; presumably not in their jurisdiction, anyway. Or else what if they VPN in from a foreign IP? (In tis particular example, Judge Fleischer is apparently in Houston, Texas.)
    – smci
    Commented Nov 11 at 2:05
4

Not Legal Advice

Exactly whether it's legal or not within the United States likely depends on laws that vary state-to-state, however, it is also probable that knowingly and willingly breaking such a restriction could be counted as Contempt of Court if the Judge is so inclined. In the specific instance you highlighted in your screenshot, the Judge themselves streams sessions live on YouTube which is likely where the recording has originated from. I would say it is unlikely the Judge would act in this particular instance.

Judge YT: https://youtube.com/@justicewithjudgefleischer/streams

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .