Anonimo
اللغة: العربية

تصوير الناس

تصوير الناس في ألمانيا: هل يجوز التصوير، وهل يجوز النشر؟

هذه معلومات عامة وليست استشارة قانونية. كل عبارة مرتبطة بمصدرها الأصلي. تم التحقق بتاريخ ⁦2026-10-17⁩.

لم تُترجم هذه الصفحة بعد وتُعرض بالإنجليزية، وهي النسخة التي تم التحقق منها بالرجوع إلى المصادر المرتبطة.

التصوير في الأماكن العامة مسموح عمومًا؛ ونشر صورة شخص يمكن التعرف عليه يتطلب عادةً موافقته بموجب قانون KUG، مع استثناءات للفعاليات العامة والحشود والمارة العرضيين.

هل يجوز لي تصوير الناس في الأماكن العامة؟

No German statute bans pointing a camera at people in public as such. The main rule, §⁦22⁩ Kunsturhebergesetz (the Art Copyright Act, KUG), is about sharing, not recording: a person's image may only be distributed or publicly displayed with their consent. The Baden-Württemberg regulator says the recording itself can usually rest on legitimate interests under Art. ⁦6⁩(⁦1⁩)(f) GDPR (LfDI Baden-Württemberg guidance).

A few criminal limits apply to recording itself. §⁦201⁩a Strafgesetzbuch (the Criminal Code, StGB) makes it an offence to film someone without authorisation inside a home or a room specially protected from view, or to film a person in a way that shows their helplessness, where this violates their most private sphere; it also covers passing on an image that could seriously damage a person's reputation (up to two years or a fine). Its exemption for art, science and news reporting covers the helpless-state and reputation cases, not filming inside a home. §⁦184⁩k StGB punishes deliberately filming someone's genitals, buttocks, a woman's breasts or the underwear covering them where these are protected from view, and §⁦201⁩ StGB punishes recording someone's privately spoken words without authorisation, which matters when your video has sound.

Recording for yourself and showing it to friends is outside the GDPR; the EU regulators' example is a tourist filming on holiday (EDPB Guidelines ⁦3⁩/⁦2019⁩).

هل يجوز لي نشر الفيديو؟

Publishing is where the KUG bites. §⁦22⁩ KUG requires consent. §⁦23⁩ KUG lists the exceptions: images from contemporary history (Zeitgeschichte), people who are only incidental to a landscape or place (Beiwerk), gatherings and parades the person took part in, and images serving a higher artistic interest. The exceptions fail if a legitimate interest of the person is harmed (§⁦23⁩(⁦2⁩)). Distributing an image against §§⁦22⁩, ⁦23⁩ is an offence under §⁦33⁩ KUG, up to one year or a fine, prosecuted on complaint.

Posting to an open audience also brings in the GDPR: publishing pictures with recognisable people is no longer a purely personal activity, even without a commercial motive (ULD, Fotos und Webcams, ⁦2025⁩). You need a legal basis, usually consent or legitimate interests under Art. ⁦6⁩(⁦1⁩)(f) GDPR; the Baden-Württemberg regulator feeds the values of §⁦23⁩ KUG into that balancing (LfDI BW).

For journalism the Federal Court of Justice held on ⁦7⁩ July ⁦2020⁩ that §§⁦22⁩, ⁦23⁩ KUG continue to govern press photos, because the states used the opening clause in Art. ⁦85⁩ GDPR to exempt journalism from Arts. ⁦6⁩ and ⁦7⁩ (BGH, VI ZR ⁦246⁩/⁦19⁩).

ما الذي يتغير مع الأطفال؟

There is no separate statute for children; the same rules apply with more weight on the child's side. Art. ⁦6⁩(⁦1⁩)(f) GDPR says legitimate interests are overridden more easily "where the data subject is a child". The Baden-Württemberg regulator says team photos of minors, and photos of minors taking part in club events, may only be published with the consent of those holding parental responsibility (LfDI BW); the Schleswig-Holstein regulator says photos of children may as a rule only be published with the parents' consent (ULD). Under §⁦1629⁩ BGB parents who share custody represent the child jointly, so consent is normally sought from both.

Schools: the Lower Saxony commissioner said in ⁦2025⁩ that filming your own child at a school enrolment for family and close friends raises no concern, but posting it on social networks with other children or adults visible needs the consent of those shown. He points to schools that collect consents in advance or set up photo zones, and stresses that consent must stay voluntary (LfD Niedersachsen, press release ⁦13⁩/⁦2025⁩).

الاستخدام الخاص مقابل النشر

Art. ⁦2⁩(⁦2⁩)(c) GDPR excludes processing "in the course of a purely personal or household activity". The Baden-Württemberg regulator reads it narrowly: photos for your own memory at a family party or school event are covered, sharing in a password-protected group limited to your close circle still is, posting on a freely accessible website is not (LfDI BW).

The KUG regulates only distribution and public display, not recording (§⁦22⁩ KUG). The exceptions are the criminal rules above, such as §⁦201⁩a StGB, which punish certain recordings even if they are never shared.

ما الذي يغيّره تمويه الوجوه

Blurring removes the main identifier, and the Schleswig-Holstein regulator lists it as a recognised measure: where the aim is not to show individuals, blurring or blacking out people is usually reasonable, and identifiability is judged objectively, not by whether you could recognise them (ULD). Recital ⁦26⁩ GDPR puts truly anonymous information outside the regulation, taking into account all means reasonably likely to be used.

Blurring is not automatically anonymisation. The Federal Commissioner says data count as anonymous when re-identification is practically infeasible, and that anonymity must not be assumed too quickly (BfDI, Positionspapier zur Anonymisierung); the EU regulators add that removing direct identifiers is not enough if a person can still be singled out, linked or inferred (Article ⁦29⁩ Working Party, Opinion ⁦05⁩/⁦2014⁩). Voice, names in captions, tattoos, clothing, location and metadata can still identify someone.

مسائل لم يحسمها القانون بعد

How far the KUG applies next to the GDPR outside journalism is disputed. Baden-Württemberg calls the relationship "ziemlich kompliziert und umstritten" (LfDI BW), Schleswig-Holstein says §§⁦22⁩, ⁦23⁩ KUG are "no longer applicable without restriction" (ULD), and the Federal Court has decided the point only for the press (BGH, VI ZR ⁦246⁩/⁦19⁩). Baden-Württemberg adds that in practice the difference is small.

The statute does not say whether a blurred person still counts as depicted under §⁦22⁩ KUG. For the GDPR, the Schleswig-Holstein regulator says posture, clothing, objects carried, and the time and place of the shot can identify someone even without a visible face (ULD).

المصادر

أيًّا كانت القاعدة في المكان الذي تصوّر فيه، فإن تمويه الوجوه التي لا تملك موافقة أصحابها هو أبسط طريقة للبقاء في الجانب الآمن قبل النشر. يقوم Anonimo بذلك على iPhone، دون رفع الفيديو.

بلدان أخرى