Anonimo
اللغة: العربية

تصوير الناس

تصوير الناس في بولندا: 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 غير مقيّد؛ ونشر صورة شخص يمكن التعرف عليه يتطلب إذنه بموجب المادة ⁦81⁩ من قانون حق المؤلف، ما لم يكن شخصية عامة أثناء أداء مهامه أو مجرد تفصيل في حشد.

هل يجوز لي تصوير الناس في الأماكن العامة؟

Polish law does not forbid pointing a camera at people in public. The main rule concerns rozpowszechnianie (distribution): article ⁦81⁩ of the ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (the Act on Copyright and Related Rights) requires the permission of the person shown to distribute their image, and says nothing about recording. An image (wizerunek) is also a personal right under article ⁦23⁩ Kodeks cywilny (the Civil Code); article ⁦24⁩ lets a person demand that threatening conduct stop "unless it is not unlawful" and claim compensation, so courts can judge intrusive filming case by case even before publication.

Criminal law is narrow. Article ⁦191⁩a Kodeks karny (the Criminal Code) punishes recording a naked person or a sexual act by violence, threat or deception, or distributing such an image without consent (three months to five years, prosecuted on the victim's request). There is no offence for ordinary street filming.

The GDPR also matters: the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO, the data protection authority) says an image is both a personal right and personal data (UODO, ⁦2025⁩). In a ⁦2025⁩ decision on home cameras that also recorded the public road and neighbours' land, UODO held the household exemption did not apply, following the CJEU's Ryneš judgment, and ordered the owner to stop (decision DS.523.6546.2024); a ⁦26,711⁩ zł fine followed for non-compliance (UODO news).

هل يجوز لي نشر الفيديو؟

Article ⁦81⁩(⁦1⁩) requires permission to distribute an image; it is not needed where the person was paid to pose, unless they expressly reserved it. Article ⁦81⁩(⁦2⁩) excepts a publicly known person whose image was made in connection with public functions, "in particular political, social or professional", and a person who is "only a detail of a whole such as a gathering, landscape or public event".

A guide UODO published with Fundacja Orange reads the crowd exception narrowly: no consent is needed where the image "is only an element of the photo, a small part of it, whose removal would not change the subject and character of what is shown" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Even then, if the person is identifiable the image is personal data and the data protection rules still apply.

Journalism differs. Article ⁦2⁩ of the ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych (the Personal Data Protection Act) disapplies many GDPR articles for press material and for literary or artistic expression, as Article ⁦85⁩ GDPR allows. Article ⁦81⁩ has no press exception.

ما الذي يتغير مع الأطفال؟

No statute sets special rules for children's images; article ⁦81⁩ and the GDPR apply, with parents consenting for minors. The June ⁦2024⁩ UODO and Fundacja Orange guide asks adults to handle children's images "with particular care and responsibility"; consent should be given in advance, for a set time, ideally in writing, and can be withdrawn (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). In ⁦2025⁩ UODO added that consent to a child's participation in an event "cannot be equated with consent to process their image" (UODO, ⁦2025⁩).

For schools, UODO says publishing pupils' photos on a school website "has no basis in any legal provision" and needs a separate, specific consent from parents or an adult pupil; wide shots of trips and school events where a child is only a detail of the whole fall under article ⁦81⁩(⁦2⁩) but must still respect the children's privacy (UODO, Poradnik RODO dla szkół).

الاستخدام الخاص مقابل النشر

Article ⁦2⁩(⁦2⁩)(c) GDPR excludes "purely personal or household" processing. UODO's home-camera guide says data protection rules do not apply if your cameras cover neither ground beyond your property nor people outside your family and friends (UODO, monitoring prywatnych posesji). Posting is different: the EU Court of Justice held that putting a video on a video website without restricting access, open to an indefinite number of people, is not a purely personal or household activity (Buivids, C-⁦345⁩/⁦17⁩). Article ⁦81⁩ covers any distribution of an image, paid or not.

ما الذي يغيّره تمويه الوجوه

The UODO and Fundacja Orange guide recommends covering children's faces with graphics or blurring them in editing software before upload, so the photo reaches the platform "in a form that prevents identification" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). It also says an image is what lets a person be recognised and covers more than the face, such as a distinctive silhouette.

It is not a complete answer. Under the GDPR the test is identifiability, and a voice, name, school logo, tattoo, gait or caption can identify someone with a blurred face. The Article ⁦29⁩ Working Party's Opinion ⁦05⁩/⁦2014⁩ on anonymisation techniques says anonymisation must be irreversible and pseudonymisation "is not a method of anonymisation"; a blur that can be undone, or one a platform applies while keeping the original, falls short of that. Location metadata can also identify someone.

مسائل لم يحسمها القانون بعد

How small a "detail of a whole" must be has no bright line; the UODO and Fundacja Orange guide limits it to a small part of the picture whose removal would not change what it shows (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Whether unpublished street filming can infringe article ⁦23⁩ of the Civil Code depends on the facts. Whether individual vloggers count as press under article ⁦2⁩ of the Personal Data Protection Act is open.

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