Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在西班牙拍摄他人：能拍吗？能发吗？

这是一般性信息，不是法律建议。每条陈述都链接了原始来源。核对于 2026-10-17。

本页尚未翻译，显示的是英文版，即对照所链接来源核对过的版本。

在公共场所拍摄一般是允许的；发布可辨认的人像通常需要根据《第 1/1982 号组织法》及数据保护法取得同意，公众人物和附带影像属于例外。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

The main rule on filming people is civil, not criminal: the Ley Orgánica 1/1982 de protección civil del derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen (the Honour, Privacy and Image Act, LO 1/1982). Article 7.5 treats capturing, reproducing or publishing a person's image, in places or moments of private life "or outside them", as an intrusion unless an article 8.2 exception applies. Article 2 says the protection is set by law and by social custom, and that there is no intrusion where the person gave express consent (LO 1/1982, arts. 2 and 7).

Article 8.2 lists the exceptions: people holding public office or a profession with public notoriety, photographed at a public event or in a place open to the public; caricature; and pictures of a public event where a particular person appears only as an accessory element (LO 1/1982, art. 8.2). In STC 72/2007 the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) upheld a Supreme Court ruling that a newspaper photo of a municipal police sergeant at an eviction in the street, accessory to a truthful news report, fell within these exceptions, so truthful information of public interest prevailed over her image right (STC 72/2007).

Filming an identifiable person is also processing personal data, so the GDPR applies unless the household exemption covers you (RGPD, art. 2.2.c).

我能发出去吗？

Publishing is where the rules bite. The AEPD (Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, the data protection authority) says that putting images of other people online requires their consent (or another legal ground), and for children under 14 the consent of parents or guardians; posting to an open profile means sharing with an unknown audience, which needs prior authorisation (AEPD blog, 2018).

The LO 1/1982 exceptions still apply when you publish: public figures at public events, and people who appear only incidentally in images of a public event. Using someone's image, name or voice for advertising or commercial purposes is a separate intrusion under article 7.6 (LO 1/1982, arts. 7.6 and 8.2).

Freedom of expression weighs on the other side; the LOPDGDD states that everyone has the right to freedom of expression on the Internet (LOPDGDD, art. 85). A person who objects to an identifiable image can ask whoever posted it to erase it and, if that fails, complain to the AEPD (AEPD blog, 2018).

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

No separate filming statute exists for children, but consent is stricter. Under LO 1/1982 art. 3 a minor consents personally if mature enough; otherwise a legal representative consents in writing after notifying the Ministerio Fiscal (public prosecutor), who can object (LO 1/1982, art. 3). The Ley Orgánica 3/2018 (LOPDGDD, the Data Protection and Digital Rights Act) lets minors consent to processing of their data from age 14; below 14 the parents consent, and spreading minors' images on social networks in a way that may breach their rights brings in the Ministerio Fiscal (LOPDGDD, arts. 7 and 84).

The Fiscalía General del Estado's Instrucción 2/2006 tells prosecutors that images of minors in public places that appear only casually or as an accessory to the main information are not, as a rule, unlawful, but where the setting carries negative connotations the image must be distorted so the child cannot be identified (Instrucción 2/2006). For school events outside its teaching role, the AEPD says a school must explain how it will use the images and ask consent before recording and publishing (from pupils over 14 themselves, otherwise from parents), while relatives filming for family use fall under the household exemption (AEPD FAQ, school events).

私人使用与公开发布

The GDPR does not apply to processing by a natural person "in the exercise of exclusively personal or household activities" (RGPD, art. 2.2.c). The AEPD applies this to family videos: filming a school show for domestic use is outside the GDPR, but posting the same images "en abierto" (openly) on social networks is processing that needs the consent of the people shown (AEPD FAQ, school events). LO 1/1982 art. 7.5 covers capturing as well as publishing, so the civil image right is not limited to what goes online (LO 1/1982, art. 7.5).

模糊人脸会改变什么

Blurring removes the main identifier, and the Fiscalía itself tells prosecutors that a child shown in a negative context must be made unidentifiable by distorting the image (Instrucción 2/2006). But blurring is not anonymisation. The AEPD's anonymisation guidance says the aim is irreversibility and that re-identification risk from other linkable data must be assessed (AEPD, Orientaciones sobre anonimización); the Article 29 Working Party says pseudonymisation "is not a method of anonymisation" (WP29 Opinion 05/2014). A blurred face can still be personal data if voice, name, tattoos, clothing, location or the caption identify the person.

法律尚无定论之处

Whether a bystander in a street vlog is an "accessory" element under art. 8.2.c is decided case by case; the statute gives no bright line (LO 1/1982, art. 8.2). An image may fall within an art. 8.2 exception yet still need a data protection legal basis once posted online; the AEPD guidance we found deals with family and school images, not with vloggers (AEPD blog, 2018).

Two government bills before the Congreso de los Diputados would change rules described here. One would replace LO 1/1982 with a new act (Proyecto de Ley Orgánica 121/000103); the other would raise the age for consenting to data processing from 14 to 16 (Proyecto de Ley Orgánica 121/000052). Until they are passed and published in the BOE, the current texts apply.

来源

无论你拍摄地的规定如何，把没有得到同意的人脸模糊掉，都是发布前最简单的稳妥做法。Anonimo 在你的 iPhone 上完成这一步，不上传视频。

其他国家