Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在荷兰拍摄他人：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；发布可辨认的人像按肖像权（portretrecht）的“合理利益”标准判断，个人用途之外还受《通用数据保护条例》（GDPR）约束。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

There is no general ban on filming people in public in the Netherlands. The portrait rules in the Auteurswet (the Copyright Act), articles 19-21 govern openbaarmaking (publication) of a portrait, not the act of recording. Criminal law targets hidden cameras and sexual images: article 139f Wetboek van Strafrecht (the Criminal Code) punishes secretly making an image of someone in a home or other non-public place, article 441b covers a hidden camera installed in a publicly accessible place, and article 254ba punishes intentionally and unlawfully making a sexual image of someone.

Data protection applies alongside. The Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP, the Dutch data protection authority) says people in your photos and videos are "nearly always identifiable", since build or posture can be enough, so the footage is personal data (AP, Visual material). Filming for yourself and keeping the footage private, or sharing it in a very small circle such as a family WhatsApp group, falls under the household exemption.

The AP is strict on wearable cameras. Its September 2026 smart-glasses statement, headlined "filming others is almost always prohibited", says the household exemption ends once images are shared more widely, and that "in public spaces it will often be practically impossible to properly inform everyone in advance and ask their consent" (AP on smart glasses).

我能发出去吗？

Two regimes apply once you publish. First, portretrecht. For a portrait not commissioned by the person shown, article 21 Auteurswet bars publication in so far as a "redelijk belang" (reasonable interest) of that person opposes it; commissioned portraits need consent unless agreed otherwise (article 20). In Cruijff/Tirion the Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) held that prior consent is not the starting point: a person can object where they have a reasonable interest that outweighs freedom of expression in the circumstances, and privacy and commercial interests (article 8 ECHR) are weighed against expression (article 10). It added that people without public fame "in principle need not tolerate" publication of their portrait (ECLI:NL:HR:2013:CA2788).

Second, the GDPR. The AP says that sharing footage "in a wider circle, for example on a public Facebook page" ends the household exemption, a legal basis is then always needed and "in most cases" the people shown must consent (AP, Visual material). For organisations filming events, the AP says legitimate interest may be available where consent cannot be asked, and requires blurring or removal of anyone who withdraws consent (AP, photos and videos at events).

Journalism and art differ. Article 43 Uitvoeringswet AVG (UAVG, the GDPR Implementation Act) disapplies data subjects' rights and most controller duties (GDPR chapters III to VII) for processing "exclusively for journalistic purposes" or for academic, artistic or literary expression, using the room Article 85 GDPR gives member states. The basic rules, including the need for a legal basis, still apply, and the Act does not say when a vlog qualifies.

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

No separate statute covers filming children in public; portretrecht and the GDPR apply. Where consent is the legal basis, article 5 UAVG requires a legal representative's consent for anyone under 16 (unless Article 8 GDPR applies), and a child aged 12 or over may withdraw it.

For schools the AP says publishing pupils' photos or videos requires consent: pupils aged 16 and over consent themselves, parents do so for younger pupils, and children aged 12 and over may withdraw consent themselves; refusing may not disadvantage the pupil (AP, Visual material in education). A photo of children at prayer can be special-category data (AP, events).

私人使用与公开发布

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR excludes processing "by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity"; the AP applies this to footage kept private or shared in a highly restricted circle (AP, Visual material). The same page says it does not cover business use. The AP's page on home cameras adds that the GDPR applies once footage is made available to an unlimited number of people online, or when a home camera films the public road for security, and then mentions, for example, consent of the people filmed (AP, cameras at home). Portretrecht likewise restricts publication, not the making of an uncommissioned portrait (Auteurswet, articles 19-21).

模糊人脸会改变什么

Blurring is the AP's own remedy: it tells event organisers to "blur the image of that visitor" who withdraws consent, and tells people caught in someone's video to ask for a blur (AP, events; AP, Visual material). A face irreversibly blurred before upload removes the main identifier.

It does not automatically make a video anonymous. By the AP's test, build or posture can identify, so voice, name, tattoos, clothing, place and caption can keep it personal data. 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 because the original is kept does not meet that test. Time and GPS metadata stay in the file unless stripped.

法律尚无定论之处

The AP's view that publishing recognisable strangers "in most cases" needs consent sits uneasily with the Hoge Raad's view in Cruijff/Tirion that article 21 has no consent-first rule; no published decision found for this page reconciles them for a street vlog. It is also undecided when an individual vlogger acts "exclusively for journalistic purposes" under article 43 UAVG.

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