Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在土耳其拍摄他人：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。

没有在公共场所拍摄的一般性禁令，但根据《个人数据保护法》（KVKK）人脸属于个人数据；未经同意发布可辨认的人像可能违反民法和《刑法》第 134 条。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

No statute bans filming in a public place, but three layers of law apply. The Anayasa (the Constitution, art. 20) protects private life and says personal data may be processed only in cases provided by law or with the person's explicit consent.

The Türk Ceza Kanunu (the Penal Code, TCK) art. 134 makes violating a person's private life a crime, and the sentence is doubled when it is done by recording images or sound. The statute does not say where a public place ends and private life begins; the regulator, assessing municipal tourism cameras, said that in squares, walkways and beaches people can expect their behaviour not to be monitored.

The Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu (the Personal Data Protection Law, Law 6698, KVKK) covers any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, and the Kişisel Verileri Koruma Kurulu (the Data Protection Board) treats faces and licence plates in public-space footage as personal data, and live streaming as processing even when nothing is recorded. Processing needs explicit consent or an art. 5(2) ground such as legitimate interest; purely personal filming is exempt (see below).

The Türk Medeni Kanunu (the Civil Code, TMK) art. 24 says every attack on personality rights is unlawful unless justified by consent, an overriding private or public interest, or legal authority, so an unwanted close-up can be challenged in a civil court even if no crime is committed.

我能发出去吗？

Posting is where the KVKK bites. The household exemption applies only if the data is not given to third parties (art. 28(1)(a)), and publishing online makes it available to third parties. The Board fined a football-pitch operator that recorded matches and put them on its website without consent, and fined a hospital whose surgeon posted a patient's photos on his own social-media account, because the patient had consented only to the hospital, not to the surgeon's posts.

Art. 28(1)(c) takes processing for art, history, literature, science or within freedom of expression outside the law, but only if it does not violate privacy or personality rights, constitute a crime, or harm national security or public order. The Board refused that exemption to a news site that used the photo of a man under legal guardianship in a false story, weighing public interest, accuracy and the balance between substance and form.

TCK art. 134(2) punishes unlawfully disclosing images or sounds of a person's private life, including through press or broadcast with two to five years, and art. 136 covers unlawfully spreading personal data. The civil route is TMK art. 25: an injunction, a declaration of unlawfulness, publication of the judgment and damages.

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

Law 6698 has no separate rule on children or an age of consent, so the general rules apply. Under the Civil Code, parents are their children's legal representatives (TMK art. 342), but minors with the capacity of discernment may exercise strictly personal rights without their legal representative's consent (art. 16). The regulator warns parents that shared photos and videos can be misused, including through AI deepfakes. Schools and platforms can set stricter rules of their own.

私人使用与公开发布

Recording for yourself is largely outside Law 6698: art. 28(1)(a) exempts processing by natural persons within activities relating to themselves or family members in the same dwelling, provided the data is not given to third parties and kept secure. The Penal Code still applies to the recording itself if it reaches into private life. Publishing ends the exemption: you then need an art. 5 ground or the conditional expression exemption, and the Board has said even a live stream that is never saved counts as processing.

模糊人脸会改变什么

Blurring changes the position because Law 6698 protects identifiable people. Art. 3(1)(b) defines anonymisation as rendering data impossible to associate with an identified or identifiable person even when matched with other data, repeated in art. 10 of the regulator's anonymisation regulation; truly anonymised footage is no longer personal data, and the regulator's own alternative to live streams is filming so that persons cannot be identified.

Partial masking is not enough. The Board held a patient was still identifiable from eyebrows and other facial features although the eyes were covered, and that low-quality footage was personal data because physical, physiological or behavioural features could identify the players. Voice, gait, tattoos, plates or a caption can undo a blurred face.

法律尚无定论之处

The law does not say whether an individual vlogger is a "data controller", or how far the expression exemption in art. 28(1)(c) protects personal social-media posts, and none of the regulator's published guides covers filming people in public. TCK art. 134 does not define "private life" either, so the line between a public scene and private life depends on the facts.

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