Anonimo
語言: 繁體中文

拍攝他人

在中國大陸拍攝他人：可以拍嗎？可以發布嗎？

這是一般性資訊，不是法律建議。每一句陳述都連結到原始來源。核對日期：2026-10-17。

本頁尚未翻譯，目前顯示英文版，也就是對照所連結來源核對過的版本。

依據《民法典》的肖像權，製作或發布可辨識的人物影像需要同意，除非符合例外規定；人臉資料在《個人信息保護法》（PIPL）下屬於敏感個人資料，但家庭用途可豁免。

可以在公共場所拍人嗎？

The 民法典 (Civil Code), art. 1018-1019 gives every natural person a portrait right (肖像权) over any image on which they can be identified: without their consent nobody may make, use or publish their portrait, unless the law provides otherwise. Note the word 'make': on the text, filming a recognisable person is covered, not only publishing.

Art. 1020 lists when reasonable use needs no consent: personal study, art appreciation, teaching or research using an already public portrait; news reporting where the portrait is unavoidable; state organs performing duties; showing a specific public environment where the portrait is unavoidable; and other uses in the public interest or the person's own interest. A general street scene can fit the fourth exception; a close-up of one stranger is much harder to call unavoidable.

Art. 1032-1033 add that, unless the law provides otherwise or the person expressly agrees, nobody may film or spy on another person's private activities, private body parts or private spaces such as a home or hotel room.

可以發布嗎？

Publishing a recognisable person's face without consent is, on the words of the Civil Code, art. 1019, an infringement unless one of the art. 1020 exceptions fits. In deciding liability, courts must weigh the occupation of both sides, the reach of the act, the degree of fault, and its purpose, manner and consequences (art. 998). Defacing a portrait or faking one with information technology is prohibited separately (art. 1019).

The 个人信息保护法 (Personal Information Protection Law, PIPL) adds a data-protection layer. Biometric information is sensitive personal information (art. 28), and the Supreme People's Court treats face information as biometric information, at least in facial recognition cases (2021 interpretation, art. 1). Sensitive information needs separate consent (art. 29) unless another basis in art. 13 applies, such as news reporting in the public interest within a reasonable scope.

The 人脸识别技术应用安全管理办法 (Measures on the Security Management of Facial Recognition Technology), in force since 1 June 2025 and issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Public Security, govern the use of facial recognition to process face data. Where consent is the basis, they require separate consent; they also require an impact assessment, storage of face data on the device unless the person separately agrees, and prominent signage for face recognition devices in public places (arts. 6, 8, 9, 13). They cover recognition systems, not ordinary filming, but show how strictly face data is treated.

涉及兒童時有什麼不同？

Under the PIPL, art. 28, personal information of minors under 14 is sensitive personal information in its own right, whatever the content. Processing it needs the consent of a parent or other guardian (art. 31), and the facial recognition measures, art. 7 repeat that rule for face data of under-14s where consent is the basis. The Supreme People's Court's 2021 interpretation on facial recognition cases treats processing face data without the separate consent of the person or their guardian, where consent is the basis, as an infringement (art. 2(3)), and tells courts to weigh whether the victim is a minor (art. 3).

The portrait right in Civil Code art. 1018 belongs to every natural person, children included; the Civil Code has no separate portrait rule for minors.

私人使用與公開發布

The PIPL does not apply to a natural person processing personal information for personal or family affairs (art. 72). Filming for yourself or your family therefore sits outside the PIPL. The Civil Code portrait right has no such household exemption, since art. 1019 covers making a portrait, not only publishing it. For private filming of public scenes, the art. 1020 exception for showing a specific public environment is the one most likely to apply.

Publishing to a platform is where both laws fully apply. Posting a stranger's face is 'use' and 'publication' under art. 1019, and a creator with an audience may well not be acting for personal or family affairs under PIPL art. 72.

模糊人臉會改變什麼

Blurring matters here because the portrait right only covers an image on which the person is identifiable (Civil Code, art. 1018). On that definition, a face blurred so that the person cannot be recognised is not a portrait. Under the PIPL, information that has been anonymised so that a specific person cannot be identified and the process cannot be reversed is not personal information at all (art. 4 and art. 73(4)). The facial recognition measures use the same exclusion for face information (art. 19).

Partial measures do not count: the PIPL distinguishes de-identification (still identifiable with extra information) from anonymisation (art. 73(3)-(4)). Voice, body, clothing, location, a name in the caption or a visible plate can still identify a blurred person, and the privacy right over private activities (art. 1033) does not depend on the face at all.

法律尚無定論之處

What counts as 'reasonable' and 'unavoidable' use under art. 1020 is decided case by case, and we found no clear line for creator content. Whether a monetised account still processes data for 'personal or family affairs' under PIPL art. 72 is not addressed in any Cyberspace Administration guidance we found.

資料來源

不論你拍攝地點的規定如何，發布前先模糊那些未取得同意的人臉，是最簡單的保險做法。Anonimo 直接在你的 iPhone 上處理，不會上傳影片。

其他國家