Can I photograph strangers abroad? What the official texts say in the EU, France, Germany and Japan

Does EU data protection law cover my holiday photos?

This is not legal advice. Rules change; check with the authority named.

Article 2(2)(c) of the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) says it does not apply to the processing of personal data by a natural person in the course of a purely personal or household activity.¹

Recital 18 explains that this means activity with no connection to a professional or commercial activity, and that it can include social networking and online activity undertaken within that personal context.¹

In a 2014 case about a home security camera, decided under the earlier Directive 95/46, the EU Court of Justice held that this household exception must be narrowly construed.²

Article 85 requires Member States to reconcile by law the right to data protection with freedom of expression and information, including journalistic, academic, artistic and literary expression, and to provide exemptions or derogations where necessary.¹ The detail is therefore set in each country's own law.¹

What does France's data protection authority say?

The CNIL, France's data protection authority, addresses image rights on the internet in a published answer. It states: Chacun a sur son image un droit exclusif et absolu; and Chacun peut s'opposer à la reproduction ou à l'utilisation de son image sans autorisation préalable.³

On children, the same answer says: avant de publier la photo d'un mineur, l'accord des parents est nécessaire.³

What does German law say?

Section 22 of the Art Copyright Act (Kunsturhebergesetz, KUG) says portraits may only be distributed or publicly displayed with the consent of the person shown.⁴ In case of doubt, consent is presumed if the person was paid to be portrayed, and after their death the consent of relatives is needed bis zum Ablaufe von 10 Jahren (until ten years have passed).⁴

Section 23 lists cases where consent is not needed: images from the sphere of contemporary history; pictures in which people appear only as accessories next to a landscape or other locality; pictures of gatherings, processions and similar events in which the people took part; and portraits not made to order, where distribution serves a higher interest of art.⁵ These exceptions do not cover distribution that violates a legitimate interest of the person shown.⁵

Under section 33, distributing or publicly displaying a portrait contrary to sections 22 and 23 can be punished with up to one year's imprisonment or a fine, and is prosecuted only on complaint.⁶

Section 201a of the Criminal Code punishes with up to two years' imprisonment or a fine, among other acts, making or transmitting an unauthorised image of a person in a dwelling or a room specially protected from view, or one that displays a person's helplessness, where this violates their most personal sphere of life.⁷

For buildings and public art, section 59 of the Copyright Act (UrhG) allows works permanently located on public paths, roads or squares to be reproduced by photograph and distributed; for buildings this covers only the exterior view.⁸

We did not find an official statement of how the KUG and the GDPR fit together, so this page takes no position on it.

What do official Japanese sources say?

We did not find a Japanese statute on photographing people to cite here. The fullest official statement we found is a guideline from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications (MIC) on publishing drone footage online, which summarises the courts' approach.⁹

The guideline says people are held to have a personal right not to have their face and figure photographed or published without their consent and without good reason, and that photographing or publishing beyond what a person must reasonably tolerate, judged by its purpose, necessity and manner, is unlawful as an infringement of portrait rights.⁹

It cites a Supreme Court judgment of 10 November 2005, which weighs the person's social standing, the activity photographed, and the place, purpose, manner and necessity of the photography.⁹

According to the guideline, court cases suggest that photographing and publishing people in ordinary dress in public places is often within tolerable limits, particularly when no individual is singled out, but this does not extend to places that are not public, such as inside a home.⁹

For drone footage it asks people not to point cameras at homes and to blur faces, number plates and anything that reveals life inside a home before publishing.⁹ It also notes that filming places where people are normally undressed, such as baths, changing rooms and toilets, may be an offence under the Minor Offenses Act or prefectural nuisance ordinances.⁹

What this page cannot tell you

• Case law not read at source. French image-rights case law was not read, and the Japanese rulings appear here only as the MIC guideline cites them.
• Three countries only. Each EU country sets its own balance under GDPR Article 85; this page covers France and Germany.
• Rules change. Check the current text with the CNIL, on gesetze-im-internet.de or with the relevant ministry before relying on it.
• Not legal advice. We report what the official texts say; for a real case, ask a lawyer in that country or the national data protection authority.
• French statutes. France's official law site refused our download, so we do not summarise the Civil Code or the Penal Code here; the CNIL's wording above is quoted exactly.

Related: Drone rules for travellers: EU and Japan · Photography near military sites · Museum photography rules.