Anonimo
言語: 日本語

人を撮影するとき

中国（本土）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。

民法典の肖像権により、識別できる人物の画像を作成または公開するには、例外に当たらない限り同意が必要です。顔のデータは個人情報保護法（PIPL）上のセンシティブ個人情報で、家庭内利用は適用除外です。

公共の場で人を撮影してもいい？

The 民法典 (Civil Code), art. 1018-1019 gives every natural person a portrait right (肖像权) over any image on which they can be identified: without their consent nobody may make, use or publish their portrait, unless the law provides otherwise. Note the word 'make': on the text, filming a recognisable person is covered, not only publishing.

Art. 1020 lists when reasonable use needs no consent: personal study, art appreciation, teaching or research using an already public portrait; news reporting where the portrait is unavoidable; state organs performing duties; showing a specific public environment where the portrait is unavoidable; and other uses in the public interest or the person's own interest. A general street scene can fit the fourth exception; a close-up of one stranger is much harder to call unavoidable.

Art. 1032-1033 add that, unless the law provides otherwise or the person expressly agrees, nobody may film or spy on another person's private activities, private body parts or private spaces such as a home or hotel room.

投稿してもいい？

Publishing a recognisable person's face without consent is, on the words of the Civil Code, art. 1019, an infringement unless one of the art. 1020 exceptions fits. In deciding liability, courts must weigh the occupation of both sides, the reach of the act, the degree of fault, and its purpose, manner and consequences (art. 998). Defacing a portrait or faking one with information technology is prohibited separately (art. 1019).

The 个人信息保护法 (Personal Information Protection Law, PIPL) adds a data-protection layer. Biometric information is sensitive personal information (art. 28), and the Supreme People's Court treats face information as biometric information, at least in facial recognition cases (2021 interpretation, art. 1). Sensitive information needs separate consent (art. 29) unless another basis in art. 13 applies, such as news reporting in the public interest within a reasonable scope.

The 人脸识别技术应用安全管理办法 (Measures on the Security Management of Facial Recognition Technology), in force since 1 June 2025 and issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Public Security, govern the use of facial recognition to process face data. Where consent is the basis, they require separate consent; they also require an impact assessment, storage of face data on the device unless the person separately agrees, and prominent signage for face recognition devices in public places (arts. 6, 8, 9, 13). They cover recognition systems, not ordinary filming, but show how strictly face data is treated.

子どもの場合は何が変わる？

Under the PIPL, art. 28, personal information of minors under 14 is sensitive personal information in its own right, whatever the content. Processing it needs the consent of a parent or other guardian (art. 31), and the facial recognition measures, art. 7 repeat that rule for face data of under-14s where consent is the basis. The Supreme People's Court's 2021 interpretation on facial recognition cases treats processing face data without the separate consent of the person or their guardian, where consent is the basis, as an infringement (art. 2(3)), and tells courts to weigh whether the victim is a minor (art. 3).

The portrait right in Civil Code art. 1018 belongs to every natural person, children included; the Civil Code has no separate portrait rule for minors.

私的利用と公開の違い

The PIPL does not apply to a natural person processing personal information for personal or family affairs (art. 72). Filming for yourself or your family therefore sits outside the PIPL. The Civil Code portrait right has no such household exemption, since art. 1019 covers making a portrait, not only publishing it. For private filming of public scenes, the art. 1020 exception for showing a specific public environment is the one most likely to apply.

Publishing to a platform is where both laws fully apply. Posting a stranger's face is 'use' and 'publication' under art. 1019, and a creator with an audience may well not be acting for personal or family affairs under PIPL art. 72.

顔をぼかすと何が変わる？

Blurring matters here because the portrait right only covers an image on which the person is identifiable (Civil Code, art. 1018). On that definition, a face blurred so that the person cannot be recognised is not a portrait. Under the PIPL, information that has been anonymised so that a specific person cannot be identified and the process cannot be reversed is not personal information at all (art. 4 and art. 73(4)). The facial recognition measures use the same exclusion for face information (art. 19).

Partial measures do not count: the PIPL distinguishes de-identification (still identifiable with extra information) from anonymisation (art. 73(3)-(4)). Voice, body, clothing, location, a name in the caption or a visible plate can still identify a blurred person, and the privacy right over private activities (art. 1033) does not depend on the face at all.

法律がはっきりしていない点

What counts as 'reasonable' and 'unavoidable' use under art. 1020 is decided case by case, and we found no clear line for creator content. Whether a monetised account still processes data for 'personal or family affairs' under PIPL art. 72 is not addressed in any Cyberspace Administration guidance we found.

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