Anonimo
언어: 한국어

촬영 규정

미국에서 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.

공공장소에서 사람을 촬영하는 것은 수정헌법 제1조로 폭넓게 보호됩니다. 음성 녹음, 초상의 상업적 이용, 신체 몰래 촬영는 규제되며 규정은 주마다 다릅니다.

공공장소에서 사람을 촬영해도 되나요?

No federal law generally bans filming people in a public place, and courts have held that the First Amendment protects recording in public, especially of police and officials at work. Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) said the First Amendment protects filming government officials in public spaces, as part of gathering and disseminating information. Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 2017) held it protects recording police carrying out official duties in public. The Department of Justice has argued the same in court. Both courts added that the right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner limits.

Video and audio are treated differently. The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, lets you record a conversation if you are a party to it or one party consents. Some states require the consent of everyone in a private conversation; Washington's RCW 9.73.030 is one. These laws cover the sound, not the picture, and only conversations the speakers reasonably expect not to be intercepted (18 U.S.C. § 2510); background street chatter normally is not one.

The limit in public is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy', which voyeurism laws apply even outdoors. The federal 18 U.S.C. § 1801 makes it a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison, to intentionally capture an image of someone's naked or underwear-clad intimate areas without consent where they would reasonably believe those areas are not visible to the public, 'regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place'. It covers only places under federal jurisdiction, such as federal land (18 U.S.C. § 7). Elsewhere state laws apply: Washington's RCW 9A.44.115 makes it a crime to film someone's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent, for sexual purposes or to share the images, where they reasonably expect privacy, 'whether in a public or private place'.

게시해도 되나요?

Posting video filmed in public is generally allowed for news, commentary, art or personal sharing. Glik describes the First Amendment as covering 'the gathering and dissemination of information', not only the recording.

Commercial use is different. Many states have a 'right of publicity' statute. Florida's section 540.08 says no one may publish or use a person's name, photograph or likeness 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' without consent, with an exception for bona fide news of legitimate public interest. Washington's RCW 63.60.050 covers name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on goods or in advertising, profit or not. These statutes target advertising and merchandise rather than news or commentary; a stranger's face in an advert or on merchandise usually needs a release.

Posting audio recorded without the required consent can be a separate offence: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 also covers knowingly disclosing an unlawfully intercepted conversation. Platforms add their own rules.

아이들의 경우 무엇이 달라지나요?

No federal statute specifically restricts filming children in public. COPPA is often cited but it is about data collection, not filming: it applies to operators of websites and online services directed to children under 13, or that know they collect personal information from children under 13. Its rule, 16 CFR Part 312, does count 'a photograph, video, or audio file where such file contains a child's image or voice' as personal information, but the duty is on the online service, not on a parent or vlogger.

Schools set their own rules. FERPA protects 'education records' maintained by the school, so it governs what the school does with student photos, not what a parent films at a game. Parents can refuse to let the school publish their child's photo as 'directory information'. Rules on visitors filming at school events come from each school or district, not from a federal statute.

개인적 이용과 게시의 차이

US law has no 'household exemption' because there is no general data protection law that would need one. Filming for yourself is mainly limited by the wiretap (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and voyeurism (18 U.S.C. § 1801) rules and their state equivalents. Publishing adds right-of-publicity statutes (Florida § 540.08) and, for online services, COPPA.

얼굴 블러 처리가 바꾸는 것

No US regulator has published general guidance on blurring faces in video, so blurring is a risk reducer, not a safe harbor. It removes the main identifier. But the law does not only protect faces: the COPPA Rule treats a child's voice as personal information just like the image (16 CFR Part 312), Washington's publicity statute lists 'name, voice, signature, photograph... or likeness' (RCW 63.60.050), and wiretap law is about audio. Voices, names said on camera, tattoos, uniforms, locations and file metadata can still identify someone.

법이 불분명한 부분

The Supreme Court has not ruled on a right to record, and the circuit decisions (Glik, Fields) concern police and officials, not a general right to film private individuals. Audio consent, voyeurism and publicity rules differ by state.

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