Anonimo
언어: 한국어

촬영 규정

폴란드에서 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.

공공장소 촬영에는 제한이 없습니다. 알아볼 수 있는 사람을 게시하려면 저작권법 제81조에 따라 허락이 필요하며, 공적 활동 중인 공인이거나 군중의 일부로만 나오는 경우는 예외입니다.

공공장소에서 사람을 촬영해도 되나요?

Polish law does not forbid pointing a camera at people in public. The main rule concerns rozpowszechnianie (distribution): article 81 of the ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (the Act on Copyright and Related Rights) requires the permission of the person shown to distribute their image, and says nothing about recording. An image (wizerunek) is also a personal right under article 23 Kodeks cywilny (the Civil Code); article 24 lets a person demand that threatening conduct stop "unless it is not unlawful" and claim compensation, so courts can judge intrusive filming case by case even before publication.

Criminal law is narrow. Article 191a Kodeks karny (the Criminal Code) punishes recording a naked person or a sexual act by violence, threat or deception, or distributing such an image without consent (three months to five years, prosecuted on the victim's request). There is no offence for ordinary street filming.

The GDPR also matters: the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO, the data protection authority) says an image is both a personal right and personal data (UODO, 2025). In a 2025 decision on home cameras that also recorded the public road and neighbours' land, UODO held the household exemption did not apply, following the CJEU's Ryneš judgment, and ordered the owner to stop (decision DS.523.6546.2024); a 26,711 zł fine followed for non-compliance (UODO news).

게시해도 되나요?

Article 81(1) requires permission to distribute an image; it is not needed where the person was paid to pose, unless they expressly reserved it. Article 81(2) excepts a publicly known person whose image was made in connection with public functions, "in particular political, social or professional", and a person who is "only a detail of a whole such as a gathering, landscape or public event".

A guide UODO published with Fundacja Orange reads the crowd exception narrowly: no consent is needed where the image "is only an element of the photo, a small part of it, whose removal would not change the subject and character of what is shown" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Even then, if the person is identifiable the image is personal data and the data protection rules still apply.

Journalism differs. Article 2 of the ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych (the Personal Data Protection Act) disapplies many GDPR articles for press material and for literary or artistic expression, as Article 85 GDPR allows. Article 81 has no press exception.

아이들의 경우 무엇이 달라지나요?

No statute sets special rules for children's images; article 81 and the GDPR apply, with parents consenting for minors. The June 2024 UODO and Fundacja Orange guide asks adults to handle children's images "with particular care and responsibility"; consent should be given in advance, for a set time, ideally in writing, and can be withdrawn (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). In 2025 UODO added that consent to a child's participation in an event "cannot be equated with consent to process their image" (UODO, 2025).

For schools, UODO says publishing pupils' photos on a school website "has no basis in any legal provision" and needs a separate, specific consent from parents or an adult pupil; wide shots of trips and school events where a child is only a detail of the whole fall under article 81(2) but must still respect the children's privacy (UODO, Poradnik RODO dla szkół).

개인적 이용과 게시의 차이

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR excludes "purely personal or household" processing. UODO's home-camera guide says data protection rules do not apply if your cameras cover neither ground beyond your property nor people outside your family and friends (UODO, monitoring prywatnych posesji). Posting is different: the EU Court of Justice held that putting a video on a video website without restricting access, open to an indefinite number of people, is not a purely personal or household activity (Buivids, C-345/17). Article 81 covers any distribution of an image, paid or not.

얼굴 블러 처리가 바꾸는 것

The UODO and Fundacja Orange guide recommends covering children's faces with graphics or blurring them in editing software before upload, so the photo reaches the platform "in a form that prevents identification" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). It also says an image is what lets a person be recognised and covers more than the face, such as a distinctive silhouette.

It is not a complete answer. Under the GDPR the test is identifiability, and a voice, name, school logo, tattoo, gait or caption can identify someone with a blurred face. The Article 29 Working Party's Opinion 05/2014 on anonymisation techniques says anonymisation must be irreversible and pseudonymisation "is not a method of anonymisation"; a blur that can be undone, or one a platform applies while keeping the original, falls short of that. Location metadata can also identify someone.

법이 불분명한 부분

How small a "detail of a whole" must be has no bright line; the UODO and Fundacja Orange guide limits it to a small part of the picture whose removal would not change what it shows (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Whether unpublished street filming can infringe article 23 of the Civil Code depends on the facts. Whether individual vloggers count as press under article 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act is open.

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