Anonimo
언어: 한국어

촬영 규정

중국(본토)에서 사람 촬영하기: 촬영해도 되고, 게시해도 될까?

법률 자문이 아닌 일반 정보입니다. 모든 진술에 1차 출처가 링크되어 있습니다. 확인일 2026-10-17.

이 페이지는 아직 번역되지 않아 링크된 출처와 대조해 확인한 영어판으로 표시됩니다.

민법전의 초상권에 따라 알아볼 수 있는 사람의 이미지를 만들거나 게시하려면 예외가 적용되지 않는 한 동의가 필요합니다. 얼굴 데이터는 개인정보보호법(PIPL)상 민감 정보이며, 개인·가사 목적 이용은 예외입니다.

공공장소에서 사람을 촬영해도 되나요?

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.

게시해도 되나요?

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.

아이들의 경우 무엇이 달라지나요?

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.

개인적 이용과 게시의 차이

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.

얼굴 블러 처리가 바꾸는 것

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.

법이 불분명한 부분

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.

출처

촬영하는 곳의 규정이 어떻든, 동의를 받지 않은 얼굴을 블러 처리하는 것이 게시 전에 안전을 지키는 가장 간단한 방법입니다. Anonimo 앱은 영상을 업로드하지 않고 iPhone에서 이 작업을 합니다.

다른 나라