Anonimo
اللغة: العربية

تصوير الناس

تصوير الناس في تايوان: 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 ويعفي قانون البيانات الاستخدام الشخصي وتسجيلات الأماكن العامة، لكن نشر صورة شخص يمكن التعرف عليه قد ينتهك حقه في صورته بموجب القانون المدني.

هل يجوز لي تصوير الناس في الأماكن العامة؟

The data-protection law largely steps aside for filming in public. The 個人資料保護法 (Personal Data Protection Act, PDPA), art. ⁦51⁩ says the Act does not apply to a natural person collecting or using personal data purely for personal or household activities, nor to audio-visual data collected in public places or public activities that is not combined with other personal data. The Ministry of Justice has explained that dash-cam footage showing only unidentified people, not linked to other data, is outside the Act. A ⁦2021⁩ interpretation by the former regulator, listed on the site of the Personal Data Protection Commission preparatory office (個人資料保護委員會籌備處), says the exemption exists so that group photos and similar footage do not need everyone's written consent, and that it does not cover a business filming its customers in its shop.

The 中華民國刑法 (Criminal Code), art. ⁦315⁩-⁦1⁩ punishes with up to three years' imprisonment, detention or a fine of up to NT$⁦300,000⁩ anyone who without reason uses equipment to peep at or record another person's non-public activities, speech, conversations or private body parts. Courts read 'non-public' as activity the person expects to keep private and has shielded with a suitable setting or measures (Shilin District Court, ⁦2024⁩, following the Supreme Court). A home, a changing room or a private conversation can qualify; open street activity usually does not.

The remaining limit is the portrait right (肖像權). Courts treat it as a personality right under the 民法 (Civil Code), arts. ⁦18⁩ and ⁦195⁩ that covers making a portrait as well as publishing and using it (Taipei District Court, ⁦2021⁩), so filming is not automatically outside it.

هل يجوز لي نشر الفيديو؟

Posting is governed mainly by the Civil Code, since the PDPA exemptions usually still apply. Art. ⁦18⁩ lets a person whose personality is infringed ask a court to remove the infringement; art. ⁦195⁩ gives compensation for non-pecuniary damage when privacy or reputation is wrongfully harmed, or another personality interest is harmed seriously. Courts count the portrait as such an interest: publishing it without consent needs a public interest in the information and must be proportionate, judged on the purpose, manner and form of the publication (Taipei District Court, ⁦2021⁩).

The PDPA returns once footage is combined with other personal data. The Ministry of Justice's ⁦2013⁩ interpretation says that once dash-cam footage is linked to data identifying a specific person, publishing it online is a 'use' that must stay within the purpose of collection or fit an exception in art. ⁦20⁩ (such as a legal provision, the public interest, preventing serious harm to others, or the person's consent). A ⁦2019⁩ interpretation listed on the Commission office's site also says data made viewable to an unspecified public may exceed 'personal or household' purposes.

Journalists have no general PDPA exemption: mass media collecting data for news reporting in the public interest are only spared the duty to inform the people concerned (art. ⁦9⁩). Otherwise they rely on art. ⁦51⁩ and the public-interest grounds in arts. ⁦19⁩-⁦20⁩.

ما الذي يتغير مع الأطفال؟

The 兒童及少年福利與權益保障法 (Child and Juvenile Welfare and Rights Protection Act), art. ⁦69⁩ bans media from reporting the names or other identifying information of children who are abuse victims, involved in family or guardianship cases, or parties to or victims in criminal or juvenile cases. Paragraph ⁦3⁩ extends the ban to everyone: no one may disclose such a child's identity through media or public display, on pain of a fine of NT$⁦20,000⁩ to ⁦100,000⁩ under art. ⁦89⁩.

Beyond art. ⁦69⁩, we found no statute aimed at filming other people's children in public, and the PDPA has no special rule for children. Where a child's consent is needed, the Civil Code's general rules make the parents the legal representatives who act for a minor or approve the minor's acts (Civil Code, arts. ⁦76⁩, ⁦77⁩ and ⁦1086⁩).

الاستخدام الخاص مقابل النشر

Recording for yourself is inside the PDPA art. ⁦51⁩(⁦1⁩)(⁦1⁩) personal-or-household exemption. The Ministry of Justice confirmed in ⁦2013⁩ that sharing photos or videos of friends and relatives online with other friends, for purely personal activities, is outside the Act, while the Civil Code (arts. ⁦18⁩, ⁦184⁩, ⁦195⁩) still gives the people shown a remedy if their personality or privacy rights are harmed.

Publishing to the general public is different: the interpretation listed on the Commission office's site says data viewable by unspecified people may go beyond household purposes, and courts deciding a portrait-right claim weigh the purpose, manner and form of the publication (Taipei District Court, ⁦2021⁩).

ما الذي يغيّره تمويه الوجوه

Under the PDPA, art. ⁦2⁩, personal data is information that can directly or indirectly identify a natural person. The Ministry of Justice has said that footage showing only unidentified people, not combined with other data, is outside the Act, and courts describe a portrait as the outward appearance, such as the face, that shows a person's features (Taipei District Court, ⁦2021⁩). Blurring faces therefore removes the main trigger for both the PDPA and the portrait right.

It does not remove everything. A voice, a plate, a uniform, a named location or a caption can still identify someone 'indirectly' under art. ⁦2⁩, and the privacy interest in Civil Code art. ⁦195⁩ and the offence in Criminal Code art. ⁦315⁩-⁦1⁩ do not depend on a visible face. We found no regulator guidance specifically on anonymising video.

مسائل لم يحسمها القانون بعد

The scope of 'personal or household activities' for creators with a public audience is not settled; published interpretations concern business use and data viewable by the public, not vlogging. The weight courts give to the portrait right against the public interest in a publication under Civil Code art. ⁦195⁩ varies by case.

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