Anonimo
語言: 繁體中文

拍攝他人

在南韓拍攝他人：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。

即使在公共場所，法院也保護肖像權，所以拍攝或發布可辨識的陌生人需要同意或重大理由；商業性拍攝則適用《個人資料保護法》（PIPA）。

可以在公共場所拍人嗎？

South Korea has no portrait-rights statute. The Supreme Court grounds the right in Article 10 of the Constitution (human dignity and the pursuit of happiness), read together with the privacy guarantee in Article 17 (대한민국헌법; English). Its standard wording is that everyone has the right not to have their face or other identifying bodily features photographed, drawn, published or used commercially without good reason. An unjustified infringement is a tort, and the Court has said it is not justified merely because it happened in a public place or was done to collect evidence for a civil case (대법원 2006. 10. 13. 선고 2004다16280, as restated in 대법원 2021. 4. 29. 선고 2020다227455).

Not every shot is unlawful. Courts weigh the interest behind the filming, its necessity, effectiveness, subsidiarity, urgency and proportionality against the harm to the person filmed, and the filmer must prove the justification. In the 2021 case, filming a neighbour who was assaulting the filmer, to preserve evidence for the criminal case, was justified. Filming a resident putting up an unauthorised banner was tolerable because they had joined a public debate and the clip went only to the estate manager and residents' representatives (2020다227455). Compensation, including for distress, comes under Articles 750 and 751 of the 민법 (Civil Act) (Korean; English).

Filming another person's body in a way that may cause sexual desire or shame, against their will, is a crime under Article 14 of the 성폭력범죄의 처벌 등에 관한 특례법 (Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Sexual Crimes): up to seven years' imprisonment or a ₩50 million fine, and distribution, possession or viewing of such footage is also punished (Korean; English).

If you film for work, the 개인정보 보호법 (Personal Information Protection Act, PIPA) applies. Article 25-2 says a person operating a mobile camera for work purposes may not film identifiable people in public places unless a legal basis applies or the filming is clearly indicated and the person does not object, and it must be signalled by light, sound or a sign. Paragraph 2 bans anyone from using such a device to film the inside of public baths, toilets and changing rooms (PIPA; English). Mobile cameras include phones, wearables and cameras on vehicles or drones (Enforcement Decree Art. 3(2)). The regulator has guides for mobile cameras (이동형 영상정보처리기기 안내서) and for fixed CCTV under Article 25 (고정형 영상정보처리기기 안내서).

可以發布嗎？

Publication is part of 초상권, so posting a recognisable person is judged by the same balance. In a 2023 case about a news broadcast showing the unblurred face of a charity head active in public life, the Supreme Court said an infringement can be excused when the content is of legitimate public concern, serves the public interest and is not expressed improperly. It added that, since the person had given an on-camera interview the day before and was named in the captions, blurring would not have hidden who they were, and sent the case back (대법원 2023. 4. 13. 선고 2020다253423).

An ordinary person posting strangers usually has no public-interest justification of that kind, so consent is the safe route, and reach matters: the 2021 case counted it in the filmer's favour that the clip went only to a small group (2020다227455). Sharing sexual footage against the subject's will is a crime even if the recording itself was consensual (Art. 14(2)).

Most of PIPA does not apply to personal information collected and used by the press for reporting, by religious bodies for their missions or by political parties for nominating candidates, and its collection rules do not apply to running an alumni association or hobby club (PIPA Art. 58). That exemption is from PIPA only; portrait rights and defamation still bind journalists.

涉及兒童時有什麼不同？

No statute deals specifically with filming children in public, and children have the same 초상권 as everyone else (2020다227455). Under PIPA, where a child's consent would be needed and the child is under 14, the business must obtain and verify the consent of the legal representative, and notices to children must be in plain language (PIPA Art. 22-2; English). The regulator has a dedicated guide on children's personal information (아동·청소년 개인정보 보호 안내서).

That guide also warns parents that posting young children's photos or videos on social media can infringe the child's privacy and control over their own data (아동·청소년 개인정보 보호 안내서). Schools and nurseries set their own rules on filming at events and on publishing pupils' images; these are institutional policies rather than statute.

私人使用與公開發布

PIPA binds a 개인정보처리자 (personal information controller), defined as someone who processes personal information to run a personal-information file for work purposes, and Article 25-2 is limited to filming for work purposes (PIPA Art. 2(5), 25-2). The regulator's mobile-camera guide says filming for family life or hobbies is in principle outside PIPA, but that posting such footage online can still bring civil or criminal liability (이동형 영상정보처리기기 안내서). Portrait rights bind everyone, and the Supreme Court's definition covers being filmed, not only being published (2020다227455).

模糊人臉會改變什麼

Blurring removes the main identifier. PIPA defines personal information as information that identifies a living person, including through images, or that can easily be combined with other information to do so (PIPA Art. 2(1)). It stops applying only when, given time, cost and technology, no one can be identified even with other information (Art. 58-2). The regulator's 가명정보 처리 가이드라인 (pseudonymisation guidelines) list blurring, pixelation and masking as ways to pseudonymise video, which leaves it personal information, and warn that AI can restore mosaicked photos (가명정보 처리 가이드라인).

초상권 covers features by which a person can be identified, and the 2023 case shows that a name on screen or other context can identify someone even if the face is blurred (2020다253423). Voice, tattoos, clothing and location carry the same risk. The regulator still recommends removing or mosaicking other people's faces before posting private footage (이동형 영상정보처리기기 안내서). Blurring does not undo an Article 14 filming offence (Art. 14).

法律尚無定論之處

There is no Supreme Court decision specifically on street vlogging or posting strangers to social media; outcomes turn on the case-by-case balance (2020다227455). The regulator's guide puts hobby filming outside PIPA, but neither it nor a court has said whether a creator with a monetised channel films 'for work purposes' (이동형 영상정보처리기기 안내서).

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