Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在日本拍摄他人：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。

没有肖像权成文法：法院综合考量地点、目的和方式，所以拍摄街景通常被容忍，但单独拍摄并发布一个陌生人可能构成侵权。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

Japan has no statute on 肖像権 (portrait rights). It is case law built on the general tort rules and Article 13 of the Constitution. In a 1969 case about police photography, the Supreme Court held that everyone has the freedom not to have their face or figure photographed without consent and without good reason (最大判昭和44年12月24日, Kyoto student federation case).

Whether one particular shot is unlawful is a balance test. In the 2005 Wakayama case the Supreme Court said you weigh the person's social position, what they were doing, the place, the purpose, the manner and the need for the photo, and then ask whether the intrusion goes beyond what a person must put up with in social life (最判平成17年11月10日). Because place, purpose and manner count, a wide shot of a street or crowd is weighed very differently from singling out one stranger or filming where people expect to be left alone.

Covertly filming someone's sexual parts or underwear without a legitimate reason is a crime under the 2023 性的姿態撮影等処罰法 (Act on the Punishment of Photographing Sexual Postures), with up to three years' imprisonment or a ¥3 million fine (e-Gov, Art. 2).

If you film as a business, the 個人情報の保護に関する法律 (Act on the Protection of Personal Information, APPI) applies. In its Q&A on security cameras, the regulator says a business capturing images that identify a specific person is handling personal information: it must specify the purpose, tell people or publish it unless it is obvious, and make the filming noticeable, for example with signs (PPC Q&A 1-13; APPI text; English translation).

我能发出去吗？

Publishing adds a second question. The 2005 Supreme Court case also recognised an interest in not having photos of one's face or figure published without good reason, and held that where taking a photo was unlawful, publishing it is unlawful too (最判平成17年11月10日). As a rule of thumb, incidental people in a public scene are low risk; a close-up of an identifiable stranger as the subject of your video is where you should ask for consent.

The APPI exempts the press (including individuals who do reporting as a business), professional writers, and religious and political groups when they handle data for those purposes (APPI Art. 57). That exemption is only from the APPI. Portrait rights, privacy and defamation claims still apply to journalists and vloggers; the 2005 case itself was brought against a news weekly.

Sharing covertly filmed sexual images is a separate crime under the 2023 Act (Art. 3). Platform rules can be stricter than the law for non-consensual footage.

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

There is no statute specifically about filming children. Where the APPI requires consent, the regulator says that, in general, it should come from a parent or legal representative for children up to an age between 12 and 15, depending on the case (PPC Q&A 1-62). A 2026 amendment to the APPI (令和8年法律第56号) adds rules for under-16s that put the legal representative in charge of consent and notices. It takes effect by cabinet order within two years of 17 July 2026 (amending act, Supplementary Provisions Art. 1), and as of this check the regulator is still drafting the implementing rules (PPC paper, 16 Sep 2026).

The 2023 Act makes it an offence, without a legitimate reason, to photograph the sexual postures of a child under 13, or of a 13 to 15 year old when the photographer is five or more years older, with no requirement that it be covert (Art. 2(1)(iv)). Many schools set their own rules, such as parental consent before pupils appear online; these are school policies, not statute.

私人使用与公开发布

The APPI binds 個人情報取扱事業者, those who use a personal-information database for a business or other ongoing activity, so it does not reach a private person filming only for themselves or their family (APPI Art. 16(2)). Portrait rights are different: they bind everyone, and the recording itself can be a tort; the 2005 case held a covert courtroom photo unlawful apart from its publication (最判平成17年11月10日).

Keeping a video of a public scene on your phone carries much less risk than posting it. Posting it with a recognisable person as the point of the video is where the balance test is most likely to go against you (最判平成17年11月10日).

模糊人脸会改变什么

Blurring removes the main identifier. The regulator says attributes such as age and gender, or people-flow data in which people are replaced by full-body silhouettes, are not personal information unless they can easily be matched back to the original camera images (PPC Q&A 1-12); it has not said the same about blurred faces as such. The APPI's 匿名加工情報 (anonymously processed information) standard is stricter: identifying details must be removed so the person cannot be identified and the data cannot be restored (PPC guidelines on pseudonymised and anonymised information).

Portrait rights protect a person's face and figure, so the practical question is whether viewers can still recognise them (最判平成17年11月10日). A blurred face with an audible voice, a name on screen, tattoos, a uniform or a known location can still identify someone, so blurring lowers the risk rather than removing it. It does nothing for the 2023 filming offence, which is complete when the footage is taken (Art. 2).

法律尚无定论之处

We found no Supreme Court ruling on street vlogging or posting strangers on social media; courts apply the 2005 balance test case by case (最判平成17年11月10日), so the tolerable limit for a monetised channel is not settled. Whether a creator who earns from a channel is a 個人情報取扱事業者 under the APPI depends on the facts (APPI Art. 16(2)). The 2026 under-16 rules are enacted but their start date and details are still being set (amending act).

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