Anonimo
语言: 简体中文

拍摄他人

在美国拍摄他人：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。

在公共场所拍人受到宪法第一修正案的广泛保护；录音、肖像的商业使用和偷拍私密部位受到监管，且各州规定不同。

我能在公共场所拍人吗？

No federal law generally bans filming people in a public place, and courts have held that the First Amendment protects recording in public, especially of police and officials at work. Glik v. Cunniffe (1st Cir. 2011) said the First Amendment protects filming government officials in public spaces, as part of gathering and disseminating information. Fields v. City of Philadelphia (3d Cir. 2017) held it protects recording police carrying out official duties in public. The Department of Justice has argued the same in court. Both courts added that the right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner limits.

Video and audio are treated differently. The federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2511, lets you record a conversation if you are a party to it or one party consents. Some states require the consent of everyone in a private conversation; Washington's RCW 9.73.030 is one. These laws cover the sound, not the picture, and only conversations the speakers reasonably expect not to be intercepted (18 U.S.C. § 2510); background street chatter normally is not one.

The limit in public is the 'reasonable expectation of privacy', which voyeurism laws apply even outdoors. The federal 18 U.S.C. § 1801 makes it a crime, punishable by up to a year in prison, to intentionally capture an image of someone's naked or underwear-clad intimate areas without consent where they would reasonably believe those areas are not visible to the public, 'regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place'. It covers only places under federal jurisdiction, such as federal land (18 U.S.C. § 7). Elsewhere state laws apply: Washington's RCW 9A.44.115 makes it a crime to film someone's intimate areas without their knowledge and consent, for sexual purposes or to share the images, where they reasonably expect privacy, 'whether in a public or private place'.

我能发出去吗？

Posting video filmed in public is generally allowed for news, commentary, art or personal sharing. Glik describes the First Amendment as covering 'the gathering and dissemination of information', not only the recording.

Commercial use is different. Many states have a 'right of publicity' statute. Florida's section 540.08 says no one may publish or use a person's name, photograph or likeness 'for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose' without consent, with an exception for bona fide news of legitimate public interest. Washington's RCW 63.60.050 covers name, voice, signature, photograph or likeness on goods or in advertising, profit or not. These statutes target advertising and merchandise rather than news or commentary; a stranger's face in an advert or on merchandise usually needs a release.

Posting audio recorded without the required consent can be a separate offence: 18 U.S.C. § 2511 also covers knowingly disclosing an unlawfully intercepted conversation. Platforms add their own rules.

涉及儿童时有什么不同？

No federal statute specifically restricts filming children in public. COPPA is often cited but it is about data collection, not filming: it applies to operators of websites and online services directed to children under 13, or that know they collect personal information from children under 13. Its rule, 16 CFR Part 312, does count 'a photograph, video, or audio file where such file contains a child's image or voice' as personal information, but the duty is on the online service, not on a parent or vlogger.

Schools set their own rules. FERPA protects 'education records' maintained by the school, so it governs what the school does with student photos, not what a parent films at a game. Parents can refuse to let the school publish their child's photo as 'directory information'. Rules on visitors filming at school events come from each school or district, not from a federal statute.

私人使用与公开发布

US law has no 'household exemption' because there is no general data protection law that would need one. Filming for yourself is mainly limited by the wiretap (18 U.S.C. § 2511) and voyeurism (18 U.S.C. § 1801) rules and their state equivalents. Publishing adds right-of-publicity statutes (Florida § 540.08) and, for online services, COPPA.

模糊人脸会改变什么

No US regulator has published general guidance on blurring faces in video, so blurring is a risk reducer, not a safe harbor. It removes the main identifier. But the law does not only protect faces: the COPPA Rule treats a child's voice as personal information just like the image (16 CFR Part 312), Washington's publicity statute lists 'name, voice, signature, photograph... or likeness' (RCW 63.60.050), and wiretap law is about audio. Voices, names said on camera, tattoos, uniforms, locations and file metadata can still identify someone.

法律尚无定论之处

The Supreme Court has not ruled on a right to record, and the circuit decisions (Glik, Fields) concern police and officials, not a general right to film private individuals. Audio consent, voyeurism and publicity rules differ by state.

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