Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在波兰拍摄他人：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。

在公共场所拍摄不受限制；发布可辨认的人像需要根据著作权法第 81 条取得许可，除非对方是履职中的公众人物或只是人群中的一个细节。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

Polish law does not forbid pointing a camera at people in public. The main rule concerns rozpowszechnianie (distribution): article 81 of the ustawa o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych (the Act on Copyright and Related Rights) requires the permission of the person shown to distribute their image, and says nothing about recording. An image (wizerunek) is also a personal right under article 23 Kodeks cywilny (the Civil Code); article 24 lets a person demand that threatening conduct stop "unless it is not unlawful" and claim compensation, so courts can judge intrusive filming case by case even before publication.

Criminal law is narrow. Article 191a Kodeks karny (the Criminal Code) punishes recording a naked person or a sexual act by violence, threat or deception, or distributing such an image without consent (three months to five years, prosecuted on the victim's request). There is no offence for ordinary street filming.

The GDPR also matters: the Urząd Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO, the data protection authority) says an image is both a personal right and personal data (UODO, 2025). In a 2025 decision on home cameras that also recorded the public road and neighbours' land, UODO held the household exemption did not apply, following the CJEU's Ryneš judgment, and ordered the owner to stop (decision DS.523.6546.2024); a 26,711 zł fine followed for non-compliance (UODO news).

我能发出去吗？

Article 81(1) requires permission to distribute an image; it is not needed where the person was paid to pose, unless they expressly reserved it. Article 81(2) excepts a publicly known person whose image was made in connection with public functions, "in particular political, social or professional", and a person who is "only a detail of a whole such as a gathering, landscape or public event".

A guide UODO published with Fundacja Orange reads the crowd exception narrowly: no consent is needed where the image "is only an element of the photo, a small part of it, whose removal would not change the subject and character of what is shown" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Even then, if the person is identifiable the image is personal data and the data protection rules still apply.

Journalism differs. Article 2 of the ustawa o ochronie danych osobowych (the Personal Data Protection Act) disapplies many GDPR articles for press material and for literary or artistic expression, as Article 85 GDPR allows. Article 81 has no press exception.

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

No statute sets special rules for children's images; article 81 and the GDPR apply, with parents consenting for minors. The June 2024 UODO and Fundacja Orange guide asks adults to handle children's images "with particular care and responsibility"; consent should be given in advance, for a set time, ideally in writing, and can be withdrawn (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). In 2025 UODO added that consent to a child's participation in an event "cannot be equated with consent to process their image" (UODO, 2025).

For schools, UODO says publishing pupils' photos on a school website "has no basis in any legal provision" and needs a separate, specific consent from parents or an adult pupil; wide shots of trips and school events where a child is only a detail of the whole fall under article 81(2) but must still respect the children's privacy (UODO, Poradnik RODO dla szkół).

私人使用与公开发布

Article 2(2)(c) GDPR excludes "purely personal or household" processing. UODO's home-camera guide says data protection rules do not apply if your cameras cover neither ground beyond your property nor people outside your family and friends (UODO, monitoring prywatnych posesji). Posting is different: the EU Court of Justice held that putting a video on a video website without restricting access, open to an indefinite number of people, is not a purely personal or household activity (Buivids, C-345/17). Article 81 covers any distribution of an image, paid or not.

模糊人脸会改变什么

The UODO and Fundacja Orange guide recommends covering children's faces with graphics or blurring them in editing software before upload, so the photo reaches the platform "in a form that prevents identification" (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). It also says an image is what lets a person be recognised and covers more than the face, such as a distinctive silhouette.

It is not a complete answer. Under the GDPR the test is identifiability, and a voice, name, school logo, tattoo, gait or caption can identify someone with a blurred face. 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, or one a platform applies while keeping the original, falls short of that. Location metadata can also identify someone.

法律尚无定论之处

How small a "detail of a whole" must be has no bright line; the UODO and Fundacja Orange guide limits it to a small part of the picture whose removal would not change what it shows (UODO, Wizerunek dziecka w internecie). Whether unpublished street filming can infringe article 23 of the Civil Code depends on the facts. Whether individual vloggers count as press under article 2 of the Personal Data Protection Act is open.

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