Anonimo
言語: 日本語

人を撮影するとき

ブラジルで人を撮影するとき：撮影してもいい？投稿してもいい？

これは一般的な情報であって法的助言ではありません。すべての記述は一次資料にリンクしています。2026-10-17に確認。

このページはまだ翻訳されておらず、リンク先の資料と照合した英語版を表示しています。

公共の場での撮影は禁止されていませんが、肖像は憲法上の権利です。識別できる人物を同意なく商業目的で公開すると損害賠償の対象になり、子どもにはさらに手厚い保護があります。

公共の場で人を撮影してもいい？

In Brazil the limits on filming people come mainly from personality rights. The Constituição Federal, art. 5 X (the Federal Constitution) makes intimacy, private life, honour and image inviolable, with a right to compensation, and (item LXXIX) makes data protection a fundamental right.

The Código Civil, art. 20 (the Civil Code) is the key rule. Unless authorised, or needed for justice or public order, the publication, exhibition or use of a person's image can be stopped at their request, and compensated, if it harms their honour or good name, or is for commercial purposes. Art. 21 adds that private life is inviolable.

So the recording itself is rarely the problem; what matters is how the image is used. The image right has to be balanced against freedom of expression, which art. 5 IX also protects.

投稿してもいい？

Posting is where the law bites. The Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ, the highest court for federal law) settled the commercial side in Súmula 403: compensation for the unauthorised publication of a person's image for economic or commercial purposes does not depend on proof of harm. An ad showing an identifiable stranger without consent falls squarely into that line, and a monetised video may too.

For non-commercial posts there is no automatic damages rule. The person must show the use hurt their honour or invaded their private life (Código Civil arts. 20-21). Incidental presence in a street scene is treated differently from a video that singles someone out, but this is decided case by case.

The Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados Pessoais, Lei 13.709/2018 (LGPD, the General Data Protection Law) treats information about an identifiable person, such as a recognisable face, as personal data (art. 5 I). It does not apply to processing by a natural person for exclusively private and non-economic purposes, nor to exclusively journalistic or artistic purposes (art. 4 I-II). A creator who earns from a channel may fall outside that exemption and then needs a legal basis such as consent or legitimate interest (art. 7).

子どもの場合は何が変わる？

The Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente, Lei 8.069/1990 (ECA, the Child and Adolescent Statute) says in art. 17 that a child's right to respect includes preservation of their image and identity, and in art. 18 that everyone must protect children from humiliating or embarrassing treatment. Art. 143 bars news reports from identifying a child or adolescent accused of an offence, and art. 247 fines anyone who shows or transmits an image, video or live stream that identifies them.

Under the LGPD, art. 14, the data of children and adolescents must be processed in their best interest, and for children (under 12, as ECA art. 2 defines them) consent must be specific, highlighted consent from a parent or guardian. The ANPD's Enunciado CD/ANPD 1/2023 says any legal basis in art. 7 or 11 can be used for children's data, provided the child's best interest is assessed and prevails in the concrete case. We found no statute specifically on filming other people's children in public; the ECA and Civil Code rules above apply.

私的利用と公開の違い

Recording for yourself, a family album or a private chat is processing by a natural person for private, non-economic purposes, so the LGPD does not apply (art. 4 I). The Civil Code image right is triggered by publication, exhibition or use of the image (art. 20), not by a file kept on your phone.

Publishing changes both. A public video can be challenged under the image right, and a monetised channel may be treated as economic use under Súmula 403, which the LGPD's private, non-economic exemption is unlikely to cover.

顔をぼかすと何が変わる？

Blurring removes the main identifier the Civil Code protects: an image that no longer shows a recognisable person is hard to attack under art. 20. Under the LGPD, data that cannot be linked to a person by reasonable, available technical means is anonymised and is no longer personal data (art. 5 III and XI, art. 12), unless the process can be reversed with reasonable effort.

The ANPD's technical study on anonymisation (2023) treats anonymisation as a risk-based process judged by that reasonable-efforts test. Voice, name, tattoos, clothing, a car plate, the place and the caption can still identify a blurred person. Blurring lowers the risk; it does not by itself free a video from personality or data rights.

法律がはっきりしていない点

We found no ANPD guidance on how far a vlogger or small creator fits the LGPD's 'exclusively private and non-economic' exemption. The line between incidental appearance (usually tolerated) and a video that singles someone out (usually not) depends on the facts and is decided case by case under arts. 20-21.

A Senate bill to update the Código Civil, which includes changes to personality rights, is still in committee (PL 4/2025). Until it is passed and signed, arts. 20-21 as quoted here apply.

出典

撮影地のルールがどうであれ、同意を得ていない人の顔をぼかしてから投稿するのが、いちばん簡単に安全側に立つ方法です。Anonimoなら動画をアップロードせずに、iPhone上でそれができます。

他の国