Anonimo
語言: 繁體中文

拍攝他人

在美國拍攝他人：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。

在公共場所拍人受到憲法第一修正案的廣泛保護；錄音、肖像的商業使用及偷拍私密部位受到規範，且各州規定不同。

可以在公共場所拍人嗎？

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'.

可以發布嗎？

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.

涉及兒童時有什麼不同？

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.

私人使用與公開發布

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.

模糊人臉會改變什麼

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.

法律尚無定論之處

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.

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