Anonimo
اللغة: العربية

تصوير الناس

تصوير الناس في الولايات المتحدة: 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.

تصوير الناس في الأماكن العامة محمي على نطاق واسع بموجب التعديل الأول للدستور؛ أما التسجيل الصوتي والاستخدام التجاري لصورة الشخص والتصوير التلصّصي فمنظمة، وتختلف القواعد من ولاية إلى أخرى.

هل يجوز لي تصوير الناس في الأماكن العامة؟

No federal law generally bans filming people in a public place, and courts have held that the First Amendment protects recording in public, especially of police and officials at work. Glik v. Cunniffe (⁦1⁩st Cir. ⁦2011⁩) said the First Amendment protects filming government officials in public spaces, as part of gathering and disseminating information. Fields v. City of Philadelphia (⁦3⁩d Cir. ⁦2017⁩) held it protects recording police carrying out official duties in public. The Department of Justice has argued the same in court. Both courts added that the right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner limits.

Video and audio are treated differently. The federal Wiretap Act, ⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦2511⁩, lets you record a conversation if you are a party to it or one party consents. Some states require the consent of everyone in a private conversation; Washington's RCW ⁦9.73⁩.030 is one. These laws cover the sound, not the picture, and only conversations the speakers reasonably expect not to be intercepted (⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦2510⁩); background street chatter normally is not one.

The limit in public is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy', which voyeurism laws apply even outdoors. The federal ⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦1801⁩ makes it a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison, to intentionally capture an image of someone's naked or underwear-clad intimate areas without consent where they would reasonably believe those areas are not visible to the public, 'regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place'. It covers only places under federal jurisdiction, such as federal land (⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦7⁩). Elsewhere state laws apply: Washington's RCW ⁦9⁩A.44.115 makes it a crime to film someone's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent, for sexual purposes or to share the images, where they reasonably expect privacy, 'whether in a public or private place'.

هل يجوز لي نشر الفيديو؟

Posting video filmed in public is generally allowed for news, commentary, art or personal sharing. Glik describes the First Amendment as covering 'the gathering and dissemination of information', not only the recording.

Commercial use is different. Many states have a 'right of publicity' statute. Florida's section ⁦540.08⁩ says no one may publish or use a person's name, photograph or likeness 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' without consent, with an exception for bona fide news of legitimate public interest. Washington's RCW ⁦63.60⁩.050 covers name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on goods or in advertising, profit or not. These statutes target advertising and merchandise rather than news or commentary; a stranger's face in an advert or on merchandise usually needs a release.

Posting audio recorded without the required consent can be a separate offence: ⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦2511⁩ also covers knowingly disclosing an unlawfully intercepted conversation. Platforms add their own rules.

ما الذي يتغير مع الأطفال؟

No federal statute specifically restricts filming children in public. COPPA is often cited but it is about data collection, not filming: it applies to operators of websites and online services directed to children under ⁦13⁩, or that know they collect personal information from children under ⁦13⁩. Its rule, ⁦16⁩ CFR Part ⁦312⁩, does count 'a photograph, video, or audio file where such file contains a child's image or voice' as personal information, but the duty is on the online service, not on a parent or vlogger.

Schools set their own rules. FERPA protects 'education records' maintained by the school, so it governs what the school does with student photos, not what a parent films at a game. Parents can refuse to let the school publish their child's photo as 'directory information'. Rules on visitors filming at school events come from each school or district, not from a federal statute.

الاستخدام الخاص مقابل النشر

US law has no 'household exemption' because there is no general data protection law that would need one. Filming for yourself is mainly limited by the wiretap (⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦2511⁩) and voyeurism (⁦18⁩ U.S.C. § ⁦1801⁩) rules and their state equivalents. Publishing adds right-of-publicity statutes (Florida § ⁦540.08⁩) and, for online services, COPPA.

ما الذي يغيّره تمويه الوجوه

No US regulator has published general guidance on blurring faces in video, so blurring is a risk reducer, not a safe harbor. It removes the main identifier. But the law does not only protect faces: the COPPA Rule treats a child's voice as personal information just like the image (⁦16⁩ CFR Part ⁦312⁩), Washington's publicity statute lists 'name, voice, signature, photograph... or likeness' (RCW ⁦63.60⁩.050), and wiretap law is about audio. Voices, names said on camera, tattoos, uniforms, locations and file metadata can still identify someone.

مسائل لم يحسمها القانون بعد

The Supreme Court has not ruled on a right to record, and the circuit decisions (Glik, Fields) concern police and officials, not a general right to film private individuals. Audio consent, voyeurism and publicity rules differ by state.

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