Anonimo
언어: 한국어

촬영 규정

튀르키예에서 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 촬영에 대한 일반적 금지는 없지만 얼굴은 개인정보보호법(KVKK)상 개인정보입니다. 알아볼 수 있는 사람을 동의 없이 게시하면 민법과 형법 제134조 위반이 될 수 있습니다.

공공장소에서 사람을 촬영해도 되나요?

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.

게시해도 되나요?

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.

아이들의 경우 무엇이 달라지나요?

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.

개인적 이용과 게시의 차이

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.

얼굴 블러 처리가 바꾸는 것

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.

법이 불분명한 부분

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.

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