Anonimo
言語: 日本語

人を撮影するとき

トルコ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。

公共の場での撮影に一般的な禁止はありませんが、顔は個人データ保護法（KVKK）上の個人データです。識別できる人物を同意なく公開すると、民法や刑法第134条に違反するおそれがあります。

公共の場で人を撮影してもいい？

No statute bans filming in a public place, but three layers of law apply. The Anayasa (the Constitution, art. 20) protects private life and says personal data may be processed only in cases provided by law or with the person's explicit consent.

The Türk Ceza Kanunu (the Penal Code, TCK) art. 134 makes violating a person's private life a crime, and the sentence is doubled when it is done by recording images or sound. The statute does not say where a public place ends and private life begins; the regulator, assessing municipal tourism cameras, said that in squares, walkways and beaches people can expect their behaviour not to be monitored.

The Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu (the Personal Data Protection Law, Law 6698, KVKK) covers any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, and the Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu (the Data Protection Board) treats faces and licence plates in public-space footage as personal data, and live streaming as processing even when nothing is recorded. Processing needs explicit consent or an art. 5(2) ground such as legitimate interest; purely personal filming is exempt (see below).

The Türk Medeni Kanunu (the Civil Code, TMK) art. 24 says every attack on personality rights is unlawful unless justified by consent, an overriding private or public interest, or legal authority, so an unwanted close-up can be challenged in a civil court even if no crime is committed.

投稿してもいい？

Posting is where the KVKK bites. The household exemption applies only if the data is not given to third parties (art. 28(1)(a)), and publishing online makes it available to third parties. The Board fined a football-pitch operator that recorded matches and put them on its website without consent, and fined a hospital whose surgeon posted a patient's photos on his own social-media account, because the patient had consented only to the hospital, not to the surgeon's posts.

Art. 28(1)(c) takes processing for art, history, literature, science or within freedom of expression outside the law, but only if it does not violate privacy or personality rights, constitute a crime, or harm national security or public order. The Board refused that exemption to a news site that used the photo of a man under legal guardianship in a false story, weighing public interest, accuracy and the balance between substance and form.

TCK art. 134(2) punishes unlawfully disclosing images or sounds of a person's private life, including through press or broadcast with two to five years, and art. 136 covers unlawfully spreading personal data. The civil route is TMK art. 25: an injunction, a declaration of unlawfulness, publication of the judgment and damages.

子どもの場合は何が変わる？

Law 6698 has no separate rule on children or an age of consent, so the general rules apply. Under the Civil Code, parents are their children's legal representatives (TMK art. 342), but minors with the capacity of discernment may exercise strictly personal rights without their legal representative's consent (art. 16). The regulator warns parents that shared photos and videos can be misused, including through AI deepfakes. Schools and platforms can set stricter rules of their own.

私的利用と公開の違い

Recording for yourself is largely outside Law 6698: art. 28(1)(a) exempts processing by natural persons within activities relating to themselves or family members in the same dwelling, provided the data is not given to third parties and kept secure. The Penal Code still applies to the recording itself if it reaches into private life. Publishing ends the exemption: you then need an art. 5 ground or the conditional expression exemption, and the Board has said even a live stream that is never saved counts as processing.

顔をぼかすと何が変わる？

Blurring changes the position because Law 6698 protects identifiable people. Art. 3(1)(b) defines anonymisation as rendering data impossible to associate with an identified or identifiable person even when matched with other data, repeated in art. 10 of the regulator's anonymisation regulation; truly anonymised footage is no longer personal data, and the regulator's own alternative to live streams is filming so that persons cannot be identified.

Partial masking is not enough. The Board held a patient was still identifiable from eyebrows and other facial features although the eyes were covered, and that low-quality footage was personal data because physical, physiological or behavioural features could identify the players. Voice, gait, tattoos, plates or a caption can undo a blurred face.

法律がはっきりしていない点

The law does not say whether an individual vlogger is a "data controller", or how far the expression exemption in art. 28(1)(c) protects personal social-media posts, and none of the regulator's published guides covers filming people in public. TCK art. 134 does not define "private life" either, so the line between a public scene and private life depends on the facts.

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