---
title: O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1. Standards in determining grant of requests for televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings.
collection: code
id: 15-1-10.1
cite_as: O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1 (2025)
canonical_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1-10.1
md_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1-10.1.md
text_url: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1-10.1/text
source_url: https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/document/docs/default-source/joint-features-document-library/t15-ch1-11a-(v13)-2020-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=d8a8826c_0#page=96
date: 2025
status: active
corpus_version: 2025-supplement-89aa39ab3c68
license: CC0-1.0
publisher: Georgia Commons, an independent project of Georgia Civic Data. Not the State of Georgia. Not legal advice.
up: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1.md
previous: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1-10.md
next: https://georgiacommons.org/code/15-1-11.md
index: https://georgiacommons.org/code/index.md
version: the only printed version
in_force: true
current_through: Including Acts of the 2025 Regular Session of the General Assembly
heading_path: COURTS / GENERAL PROVISIONS
extraction_warnings:
  - dehyphenation_unverified:perpetua-tion
---

# O.C.G.A. § 15-1-10.1. Standards in determining grant of requests for televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings.

(a) It is declared to be the purpose and intent of the General Assembly that certain standards be considered by the courts in determining whether to grant requests for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings. Such standards are intended to provide an evaluation of the impact on the public interest and the rights of the parties in open judicial proceedings, the impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court, and whether the proposed activity would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice.

(b) In considering a request for the televising, videotaping, or motion picture filming of judicial proceedings, the court shall consider the following factors in determining whether to grant such request:

(1) The nature of the particular proceeding at issue;

(2) The consent or objection of the parties or witnesses whose testimony will be presented in the proceedings;

(3) Whether the proposed coverage will promote increased public access to the courts and openness of judicial proceedings;

(4) The impact upon the integrity and dignity of the court;

(5) The impact upon the administration of the court;

(6) The impact upon due process and the truth finding function of the judicial proceeding;

(7) Whether the proposed coverage would contribute to the enhancement of or detract from the ends of justice;

(8) Any special circumstances of the parties, victims, witnesses, or other participants such as the need to protect children or factors involving the safety of participants in the judicial proceeding; and

(9) Any other factors which the court may determine to be important under the circumstances of the case.

(c) The court may hear from the parties, witnesses, or other interested persons and from the person or entity requesting coverage during the court’s consideration of the factors set forth in this Code section.

(d) This Code section shall not apply to the use of electronic or photographic means for the presentation of evidence or the perpetuation of a record.

(e) The court in its discretion may grant requests made under this Code section for all or portions of judicial proceedings.

## History

Code 1981, § 15-1-10.1, enacted by Ga. L. 1996, p. 734, § 2.

## Cross References

Freedom of speech and press, U.S. Const., amend. 1 and Ga. Const. 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Para V. Use of electronic devices in courtrooms and recording of judicial proceedings, Unif. Sup. Ct. Rule 22.

## Editor's Notes

Ga. L. 1996, p. 734, § 2, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the amendment to this Code section is applicable to all judicial proceedings held on or after July 1, 1996.

## Law Reviews

For article, ‘‘The Case Against Closure: Open Courtrooms After Presley v. Georgia,’’ see 16 (No. 2) Ga. St. B. J. 10 (2010).