ドイツで人を撮影するとき：撮影してもいい？投稿してもいい？

公共の場で人を撮影してもいい？

No German statute bans pointing a camera at people in public as such. The main rule, §22 Kunsturhebergesetz (the Art Copyright Act, KUG), is about sharing, not recording: a person's image may only be distributed or publicly displayed with their consent. The Baden-Württemberg regulator says the recording itself can usually rest on legitimate interests under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR (LfDI Baden-Württemberg guidance).

A few criminal limits apply to recording itself. §201a Strafgesetzbuch (the Criminal Code, StGB) makes it an offence to film someone without authorisation inside a home or a room specially protected from view, or to film a person in a way that shows their helplessness, where this violates their most private sphere; it also covers passing on an image that could seriously damage a person's reputation (up to two years or a fine). Its exemption for art, science and news reporting covers the helpless-state and reputation cases, not filming inside a home. §184k StGB punishes deliberately filming someone's genitals, buttocks, a woman's breasts or the underwear covering them where these are protected from view, and §201 StGB punishes recording someone's privately spoken words without authorisation, which matters when your video has sound.

Recording for yourself and showing it to friends is outside the GDPR; the EU regulators' example is a tourist filming on holiday (EDPB Guidelines 3/2019).

投稿してもいい？

Publishing is where the KUG bites. §22 KUG requires consent. §23 KUG lists the exceptions: images from contemporary history (Zeitgeschichte), people who are only incidental to a landscape or place (Beiwerk), gatherings and parades the person took part in, and images serving a higher artistic interest. The exceptions fail if a legitimate interest of the person is harmed (§23(2)). Distributing an image against §§22, 23 is an offence under §33 KUG, up to one year or a fine, prosecuted on complaint.

Posting to an open audience also brings in the GDPR: publishing pictures with recognisable people is no longer a purely personal activity, even without a commercial motive (ULD, Fotos und Webcams, 2025). You need a legal basis, usually consent or legitimate interests under Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR; the Baden-Württemberg regulator feeds the values of §23 KUG into that balancing (LfDI BW).

For journalism the Federal Court of Justice held on 7 July 2020 that §§22, 23 KUG continue to govern press photos, because the states used the opening clause in Art. 85 GDPR to exempt journalism from Arts. 6 and 7 (BGH, VI ZR 246/19).

子どもの場合は何が変わる？

There is no separate statute for children; the same rules apply with more weight on the child's side. Art. 6(1)(f) GDPR says legitimate interests are overridden more easily "where the data subject is a child". The Baden-Württemberg regulator says team photos of minors, and photos of minors taking part in club events, may only be published with the consent of those holding parental responsibility (LfDI BW); the Schleswig-Holstein regulator says photos of children may as a rule only be published with the parents' consent (ULD). Under §1629 BGB parents who share custody represent the child jointly, so consent is normally sought from both.

Schools: the Lower Saxony commissioner said in 2025 that filming your own child at a school enrolment for family and close friends raises no concern, but posting it on social networks with other children or adults visible needs the consent of those shown. He points to schools that collect consents in advance or set up photo zones, and stresses that consent must stay voluntary (LfD Niedersachsen, press release 13/2025).

私的利用と公開の違い

Art. 2(2)(c) GDPR excludes processing "in the course of a purely personal or household activity". The Baden-Württemberg regulator reads it narrowly: photos for your own memory at a family party or school event are covered, sharing in a password-protected group limited to your close circle still is, posting on a freely accessible website is not (LfDI BW).

The KUG regulates only distribution and public display, not recording (§22 KUG). The exceptions are the criminal rules above, such as §201a StGB, which punish certain recordings even if they are never shared.

顔をぼかすと何が変わる？

Blurring removes the main identifier, and the Schleswig-Holstein regulator lists it as a recognised measure: where the aim is not to show individuals, blurring or blacking out people is usually reasonable, and identifiability is judged objectively, not by whether you could recognise them (ULD). Recital 26 GDPR puts truly anonymous information outside the regulation, taking into account all means reasonably likely to be used.

Blurring is not automatically anonymisation. The Federal Commissioner says data count as anonymous when re-identification is practically infeasible, and that anonymity must not be assumed too quickly (BfDI, Positionspapier zur Anonymisierung); the EU regulators add that removing direct identifiers is not enough if a person can still be singled out, linked or inferred (Article 29 Working Party, Opinion 05/2014). Voice, names in captions, tattoos, clothing, location and metadata can still identify someone.

法律がはっきりしていない点

How far the KUG applies next to the GDPR outside journalism is disputed. Baden-Württemberg calls the relationship "ziemlich kompliziert und umstritten" (LfDI BW), Schleswig-Holstein says §§22, 23 KUG are "no longer applicable without restriction" (ULD), and the Federal Court has decided the point only for the press (BGH, VI ZR 246/19). Baden-Württemberg adds that in practice the difference is small.

The statute does not say whether a blurred person still counts as depicted under §22 KUG. For the GDPR, the Schleswig-Holstein regulator says posture, clothing, objects carried, and the time and place of the shot can identify someone even without a visible face (ULD).

出典

• Kunsturhebergesetz §22 images may only be distributed or publicly displayed with consent
• Kunsturhebergesetz §23 exceptions: contemporary history, incidental persons, gatherings, art; limit where legitimate interests are harmed
• Kunsturhebergesetz §33 criminal penalty for distribution against §§22, 23, on complaint
• Strafgesetzbuch §201a unauthorised images in homes and rooms protected from view, of helpless persons, reputation-damaging images; Abs. 4 exemption (art, science, reporting) does not cover Abs. 1 Nr. 1
• Strafgesetzbuch §184k images of intimate areas protected from view; on complaint; exemption for art, science, reporting
• Strafgesetzbuch §201 recording the privately spoken word without authorisation, up to three years or a fine
• Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), EUR-Lex Art. 2(2)(c) household exemption, Recital 18, Art. 6(1)(f), Recital 26, Art. 85
• LfDI Baden-Württemberg, Fotografieren und Datenschutz (Sept. 2019) state DPA guidance: household exemption, legal bases, KUG relationship, minors, journalism
• ULD Schleswig-Holstein, Praxisreihe 6: Fotos und Webcams (May 2025) state DPA guidance: publishing is not a household activity, children, making people unrecognisable
• LfD Niedersachsen, Pressemitteilung 13/2025: Einschulung, Fotografieren, Datenschutz school events: family use vs posting on social networks, photo zones, voluntary consent
• BGH, Urteil vom 7. Juli 2020, VI ZR 246/19 §§22, 23 KUG apply to press photos via Art. 85 GDPR; divorce-proceedings photos unlawful
• BGB §1629 Vertretung des Kindes parents represent the child jointly
• BfDI, Positionspapier zur Anonymisierung unter der DSGVO (29 June 2020) relative anonymisation standard; do not assume anonymity too quickly
• Article 29 Working Party, Opinion 05/2014 on Anonymisation Techniques (WP216) singling out, linkability, inference; removing direct identifiers is not enough
• EDPB Guidelines 3/2019 on processing of personal data through video devices household exemption examples (tourist); uploading to the internet needs a legal basis

他の国

• アメリカ合衆国
• アラブ首長国連邦
• イギリス
• イタリア
• ウクライナ
• オランダ
• サウジアラビア
• スペイン
• トルコ
• フランス
• ブラジル
• ポーランド
• 中国（本土）
• 台湾
• 日本
• 韓国