Anonimo
言語: 日本語

人を撮影するとき

イタリア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一般に認められています。識別できる人物の公開には著作権法第96条に基づく同意が必要で、第97条の公共の利益または公的なイベントの例外に当たる場合は不要です。

公共の場で人を撮影してもいい？

Italy has no statute that forbids filming people in a public place as such; the rules bite on publication. Article 10 of the Codice civile (Civil Code) lets a court stop the display or publication of a person's image outside the cases allowed by law, or where it harms their dignity or reputation (Codice civile, art. 10). Article 96 of Legge 633/1941 (the Copyright Act) says a person's portrait may not be exhibited, reproduced or sold without their consent, subject to the exceptions in article 97 (L. 633/1941, art. 96).

Using a camera or recorder to obtain, without right, images or information about private life taking place in a home or other private dwelling is a crime under article 615-bis of the Codice penale (Criminal Code), punished with six months to four years; spreading them to the public carries the same penalty (Codice penale, art. 615-bis). The article is limited to those places, so it does not cover public streets.

Filming identifiable people is also processing personal data under the GDPR unless it is a purely personal or household activity (GDPR, art. 2(2)(c)).

投稿してもいい？

Posting a recognisable stranger needs consent under art. 96 unless an art. 97 exception applies: the person's notoriety or public office, needs of justice or police, scientific, educational or cultural purposes, or an image linked to facts, events or ceremonies of public interest or held in public. Even then the image may not be shown if it harms the person's honour, reputation or dignity (L. 633/1941, art. 97).

The Garante per la protezione dei dati personali (the data protection authority) advises that before posting photos or videos in which other people appear "it is always better to first make sure they agree", especially if you tag them by name (Garante, E-state in privacy). In 2022 it banned a newspaper from further using a close-up of a jogger taken in a public place: the photo was not essential to the article and pixelating the face was not a sufficient measure (Garante, provv. 7 April 2022).

Journalists have a specific regime: the Regole deontologiche for journalism, published by the Garante, allow publication for news purposes but bar images of people involved in news events that harm their dignity unless the information is essential or socially relevant (Regole deontologiche, art. 8).

子どもの場合は何が変わる？

There is no separate statute on filming children; the stricter rules come from consent law. Article 2-quinquies of the Codice privacy (d.lgs. 196/2003, the Data Protection Code) sets 14 as the age from which a minor can consent to processing of their data for online services; below 14 a holder of parental responsibility must consent (Codice privacy, art. 2-quinquies).

Relying on settled case law, the Garante holds that posting images of minors on social networks requires the prior consent of both parents, even under shared custody. In April 2026 it declared a mother's Facebook posts of her children under 14 unlawful, barred her from posting them without the father's consent and issued a formal warning; the affectionate purpose, the small number of photos and her offer to restrict the profile's visibility did not change that, because a profile can be opened at any time and friends can share posts further (Garante, provv. 29 April 2026). Its sharenting page recommends making the child's face unrecognisable, limiting visibility settings and avoiding a dedicated account for the child (Garante, Sharenting). Journalists may not publish the names of minors involved in news events, or details that could identify them (Regole deontologiche, art. 7).

私的利用と公開の違い

The GDPR does not apply to processing by a natural person "in the course of a purely personal or household activity" (GDPR, art. 2(2)(c)), so a holiday video kept on your phone or shown to family is outside data protection law. Publishing is different: art. 96 of the Copyright Act and art. 10 of the Civil Code are about exhibiting and publishing an image, not about private recording (L. 633/1941, art. 96; Codice civile, art. 10). The Garante has said the household exemption does not cover posting on social networks, which typically makes images available to an indefinite audience, and that restricting a profile's visibility does not change this (Garante, provv. 29 April 2026).

顔をぼかすと何が変わる？

Blurring removes the main identifier, and the Garante itself recommends pixelating children's faces or covering them with an emoticon before posting (Garante, Sharenting). But the Garante does not treat a blurred face as automatically anonymous. In a 2025 decision on traffic cameras it held that obscuring faces and plates could not be considered suitable to ensure effective anonymisation, because people remain potentially identifiable from build, clothing, position in the scene, the camera's location or information held by others; data are anonymous only if they allow no direct or indirect identification (Garante, provv. 10 April 2025). The Article 29 Working Party says pseudonymisation "is not a method of anonymisation" (WP29 Opinion 05/2014). Voice, names, tattoos and captions can still identify a person.

法律がはっきりしていない点

Whether a given street scene is an "event of public interest or held in public" under art. 97 is a case-by-case judgement; the statute gives no bright line, and it still bars uses that harm the person's honour, reputation or decorum. For news use, the Garante has also required the image to be essential (L. 633/1941, art. 97; Garante, provv. 7 April 2022). We found no general guidance from the Garante for non-journalist creators on which GDPR legal basis covers posting strangers' faces; the decisions cited here concern journalists, parents and public bodies.

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