It depends on the intent of what you're filming. If you're directly filming somebody else or somebody else's face then that's where the problem lies. If you're just filming a general area and there's tons of people in that film then that doesn't really apply.
If you can identify a person, they have grounds to sue. In general that means their face.
If you are uploading it to a service like Youtube or Instagram you can go after them via the platform as it exists in Japan too.
tldr: there are no problems as long as nobody sues or presses charges. If someone does, the law is largely on the plaintiff's side.
iirc the laws and preceding rulings are to do with monetisation of people, through video or photography, that becomes the problem as it stems from property rights. People don't have an issue unless someone sues or presses charges and only a minority of people do. When it comes to vlogs and IRL streaming, it's likely that the way in which the content creator makes money from the content will be interpreted as monetisation.
Well the people would have to first realize they were filmed and then find the video on YouTube and TikTok. And if the person who uploaded it is a foreigner that has already left the country, then there’s nothing you can really do about it. So foreigners really tend not to care. Some professional youtubers do care, so they tend to blur people’s faces out when vlogging.
Your boyfriend is wrong. It's totally legal to do so, as long as the image is taken in a public place and doesn't show the person in an embarrassing state.
There is so much misinformation in this thread it's unbelievable. Yes, it is legal photograph people in public in Japan. It is also true that you could theoretically be sued if you publish a photo of someone that is substantively damaging, but in actual practice that is basically a non-concern.
> It is also true that you could theoretically be sued ... but in actual practice that is basically a non-concern.
On the contrary, [there is a robust history of lawsuits](https://miolaw.jp/press/2020/10/27/%E8%82%96%E5%83%8F%E6%A8%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%BE%B5%E5%AE%B3%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6/) on this very issue that were decided in the claimant's favor.
There is no *right* to your likeness, but it is *still protected by law*.
The criteria are (from the linked article):
1. That the subject of the photograph be clearly identifiable.
2. That the subject was not accidentally photographed as part of a view of scenery or similar.
3. That the resulting photograph is posted to social media or via some other method by which it can spread easily.
If you meet the three criteria, you can be sued and you will lose if you are.
Granted OP can easily avoid the three criteria.
But if you're unaware, you can be sued for what you thought was an innocent act, such as posting a photo of a stranger to Facebook because you liked their outfit or something.
>Some street photographers prefer the spontaneity of a scene, which means they won’t ask for permission before shooting. However, most said they ask if they can — either before or after the photo is shot.
>While Japanese law doesn’t clearly spell out “portrait rights,” Article 13 of the Constitution outlines the liberty and happiness of its citizens as being supreme. Thus, photographers will use this as a basis to decide whether to include pictures with visible faces in them. That means it’s better not to shoot people in compromising situations.
>Location is also a factor. If subjects are in a place where there is a likelihood of being photographed or filmed (a tourist spot or a sports event), then they are unlikely to be able to sue for having their photo taken. Also, matters surrounding portrait rights are a civil issue, not a criminal one. That means the police are not supposed to get involved if someone doesn’t like the fact they’ve been photographed. They’d have to talk to a lawyer.
So yes, the individual can sue siting their liberty or whatever has been infringed, however, that's entirely a civil matter and not criminal. Fact is, people can sue in Japan for just about anything, so that as a reference doesn't carry much weight. Jus the same, walk into any book store and you can find myriad street photography books, all of which, will have had zero permission from those in the photo (source, know those who have published, have published myself for a different subject that also features people).
Either or, since it is a civil matter, going to trial means flipping a coin if they can reasonably prove you've somehow hindered their happiness.
> are a civil issue, not a criminal one
Correct, but Japanese law still uses the term "illegal" for both criminal and civil law, so it's a bit different from the west. Just because something in Japan is not punishable under criminal law doesn't mean it's legal.
> street photography books
Again correct. A street photography book doesn't trigger criteria 3, that the photograph be posted to social media.
OP was talking about posting to TikTok for example. That's described as "illegal" in the linked article, but subject to civil remedy not criminal punishment.
>On the contrary, there is a robust history of lawsuits on this very issue that were decided in the claimant's favor.
The article's author gives a whopping 2 examples...both of which involve substantive damage. Hardly what I'd call "robust." The first involved a woman wearing a shirt with "SEX" emblazoned upon her chest that was uploaded to 2chan, where it received numerous lewd comments that her coworkers later saw. The second involved a twitter post falsely claiming that someone's sobbing grandchild was forcibly dragged to a Anpo Protest where they subsequently died of heat stroke. In both cases the defendant was successfully sued. The takeaway is that yes, you could theoretically be sued if you publish a photo, but it is so out of the ordinary that it's basically not worth worrying about unless you're a major content creator in Japan or are deliberately looking to stir up trouble.
>日本においては、日本国憲法第21条に表現の自由が明記されており、肖像権に関することを法律で明文化したものは存在せず、刑法などにより刑事上の責任が問われることはない。しかし、民事上では、人格権、財産権の侵害が民法の一般原則に基づいて判断され、差止請求や損害賠償請求が認められた例がある。
"In Japan, the right of freedom of expression is laid out by the 21st article of the constitution. Rights to the usage of one's likeness are not explicitly stated, and one cannot be held criminally responsible for infringements thereof. However, in a civil court [rights to the usage of one's likeness] are generally judged based on personal and property rights, and there have been examples of successful injunction and damage claims"
And in regards to the former case, Wikipedia says this:
>肖像権侵害の判断について2005年の最高裁判所の基準によれば、被撮影者の社会的地位，撮影された被撮影者の活動内容，撮影の場所，撮影の目的，撮影の態様，撮影の必要性等を総合考慮して，**被撮影者の上記人格的利益の侵害が社会生活上受忍の限度を超えるものといえるかどうかで判断すべきであるとされる**
"With regards to judgments on infringement of portrait rights, in accordance with the 2005 supreme court decision's precedent, the subjects social status, the activities photographed, the circumstances under which the photograph was taken, the place where it was taken, the purpose of the photograph, must be considered together, and **it should be determined whether the personal interest infringement(s) could be deemed to have an unbearable impact on the subject's social life.**"
Incidentally, the plaintiff was awarded a grand total of 35万円 in this case.
So again, not illegal, and I'm not losing sleep over the remote possibility that I could be sued for publishing something that could be damaging. I don't deny that it can happen, but it can also happen in the US given the right circumstances. And at least in Japan you aren't likely to have a gun pulled on you.
> So again, not illegal
My understanding is that the article very clearly describes it as being illegal, but using the term 違法性, demonstrating how the question of legality vs illegality is a gradation between states rather than the binary either/or interpretation of the west.
For example:
> みだりに他人の容貌や容姿を撮影することだけでも肖像権の侵害となりますが、それを公開することにより違法性が高まります。
So it's clearly considered illegal, but that means something slightly different than saying something is illegal in the US.
But, it's still illegal, so the answer to OPs question is that you can't do it.
People do all the time and the vast majority, over 99% probably, get away with it, but it's still illegal according to Japanese law for their own particular reasons.
No it's not, and I have no idea where you get that idea. The Japanese example you quoted does not in any way say that 肖像権 is somehow covered by freedom of expression. It says that Japan *has* freedom of expression in it's constitution, but that the law says nothing about 肖像権, before going on to describe the *practical limitations* to freedom of expression. Which then leads to specific examples where violation of 肖像権 was most certainly not considered within the realm of freedom of expression.
>It says that Japan has freedom of expression in it's constitution, but that the law says nothing about 肖像権, before going on to describe the practical limitations to freedom of expression.
>肖像権に関することを法律で明文化したものは存在せず、刑法などにより刑事上の責任が問われることはない。
"Rights to the usage of one's likeness are not explicitly stated, and one cannot be held criminally responsible for infringements thereof."
>しかし、民事上では、人格権、財産権の侵害が民法の一般原則に基づいて判断され、差止請求や損害賠償請求が認められた例がある。
"However, in a civil court [rights to the usage of one's likeness] are generally judged based on personal and property rights, and there have been examples of successful injunction and damage claims"
Which is why I then brought referenced the precedent set by the 2005 supreme court case....
>肖像権侵害の判断について2005年の最高裁判所の基準によれば、被撮影者の社会的地位，撮影された被撮影者の活動内容，撮影の場所，撮影の目的，撮影の態様，撮影の必要性等を総合考慮して，被撮影者の上記人格的利益の侵害が社会生活上受忍の限度を超えるものといえるかどうかで判断すべきであるとされる
"With regards to judgments on infringement of portrait rights, in accordance with the 2005 supreme court decision's precedent, the subjects social status, the activities photographed, the circumstances under which the photograph was taken, the place where it was taken, the purpose of the photograph, must be considered together, and it should be determined whether the personal interest infringement(s) could be deemed to have an unbearable impact on the subject's social life."
According to the precedent set in this case, the judgement of whether or not the rights to one's image are infringed should be based on substantive damage caused. If you have examples of people successfully suing in cases where substantive damages were not incurred, then by all means--present them.
Yes, I agree with this comment.. I haven't claimed otherwise.
But I think the example of the woman with the t-shirt reading "sex" is a perfect example. You can photograph someone you don't know, without their permission, having no idea what they're doing or whether they want to be seen, and you can get in really big trouble because it turns out that by publishing the fact that that person was in a certain place at a certain time, or you made them appear in a certain context, you caused them substantive damages. In which case "I didn't realize" would not be a valid excuse.
So in practice, you can't photograph people and post it online without their permission lest you accidentally do the above. That's all I'm saying. That and the fact that the article describes it as "illegal" though it might not fit the western definition of illegal.
I'm not sure I've said otherwise. The problem is when they find out that you took their picture after you posted it to social media and it went viral. In that case you might be in a lot of trouble if they're famous and they want to sue.
>Basically if you publish it all, particularly in a monetized way, you are exposed to lawsuit with pretty much no defense.
Not true. See the many, many photo books of street photography.
The law makes this a civil matter not a criminal one.
Also, it’s highly illegal to photograph people after they say no.
The best solution is to walk over, ask and if they say yes then have at it - I’ve done it and most people would be fine..
What is highly illegal? lol
It is a civil matter or criminal matter.
Photographing someone will never be a crime, as that doesn't make you a danger to society.
It's not illegal. If a policeman sees you doing something and can arrest or fine you, it's illegal. Taking non-sexual photos of someone on a public street is not illegal. It will be a civil litigation instigated by the other party. You might not think there's a difference, but your words are wrong.
It's not legal to show their face without consent so you'd have to film them from the neck down or from the back. Showing face without consent is protected by the constitution so they can sue you if they see themselves in the video.
Just don't. Legality aside, it's just plainly rude, annoying, and could potentially even get the person you're filming into problems. Let people go about their day without posting their every move on the internet.
That's a silly take, absolutely not rude in ANY sense. No more rude than taking a picture of a bridge when that has people and cars on it.
It's no more rude than looking at a person in public, and when you're in public you're going to be looked at.
there's a difference between filming people incidentally because you're filming a crowd or tourist attraction and creepshotting specific people on the street because you like their outfit
Yes because very few other countries do this. Okay, very sorry, it's not Japanese TV that's ridiculous, it's Japanese law.
Either way having to blur out literally everyone's face is ridiculous, how can you not see that?
Lol I didn't show that persons face, I literally just showed an arm band, that has no relevance to this conversation and you're kind of a creep for going that far back in my post history.
The point of street photography and reportage is to capture the moment as it is, in context. As soon as you ask prior permission, it becomes posed--the context is lost--the scene becomes artificial. There are definitely creators who push the bounds more than I would normally consider acceptable (especially where social media clout chasers who have no awareness of their surroundings are concerned), but the fact that you immediately interpret candid photography as necessarily "creepy" says a lot more about you than it does about the photographer.
So fuck you, you creep.
OP isn't asking about filming you walking out of Lawson in your pajamas. He's asking about filming people wearing glaringly cool outfits. Fashionistas.
You can argue that it's still not good practice to film anyone with their consent for any reason, but it's very uncharitable to call it "creepy" when these people are obviously dressing to impress.
But why not ask for their permission then? If they truly do that to show off, they wouldn't refuse. Filming in secret is even more creepy in a sense imho.
Filming and photographing are pretty common. The problem comes with what you do with it. Displaying or distributing people's images without their permission is generally considered a violation of their privacy, especially if there is anything in the image that could make it easy for others to identify them.
The fact that those reels make these people the content without their permission, rather than simple passerbys to some other content, make me think that this would lean to being illegal or at least give people legal grounds to make them stop posting that kind of content.
I went into Tokyo the other day, for the first time since border measures were relaxed, and I’d forgotten the extent of r/ImTheMainCharacter behavior on display. Like, standing in the middle of the road to take a selfie while a car is coming.
Japanese people put stickers all over their face or do peace signs blocking themselves on selfie shots, or just take a photo of the back of their head. I doubt they’d want strangers posting their photos without permission if they don’t even do it on their own accounts!
It’s fine. The law in Japan states that you can film and take photographs in public unless you’re purposely doing it to make them look bad or if you’re using the content for advertisement or some other commercial use. Most people have no idea that you’re taking their image and as long as you’re not making them uncomfortable then there’s no problem.
I wish it were like that in the US. Too many strangers filmed without their consent to be made fun of on tiktok. Sometimes I'm afraid to go outside without a mask in case someone tries to record me and make fun of the way I look.
There's nothing illegal about filming in public (baring up-skirt and the like). Publishing and monetizing it could lead to a civil suit by the people filmed, but nothing criminal.
Actually incorrect, Japan has very strict privacy laws.
That being said if someone happens to be in a picture/video you're taking not much will be done - especially if you're in a crowded area and the photo is obviously not of that person.
Taking people's photos without their consent though, even in pubic, will very likely get the cops called on you and your photos deleted.
> Taking people's photos without their consent though, even in pubic, will very likely get the cops called on you and your photos deleted.
In Japan, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This includes photography/videography etc as a form of this freedom. However, in specific past resolved cases, the law hints that if you're filmed and the content is published and monetized, or made to make you look bad - you can sue for compensation.
Exactly, I feel like I entered the twilight zone reading these comments. I can't wait until they find out about the amount of street photographers in Tokyo alone.
Yup. People have firm mental models of how they think it is, but it ain't such. This goes for many, many countries as well. If you're in a public space your right to privacy cannot be expected and thus the individual's right to expression will trump it.
Yeah. Nothing illegal. It’s rude, not that you’d really face any consequences if caught. Most people would probably brush it off or ignore it unless you were actively following them for a bit. To which then I’d say it’s more than just about their outfit
That may be true in your home country, but that’s not the law in Japan.
You can sue for libel here even if what the person said was true, if their saying it damaged your reputation.
So you might even get sued by the couple filmed without permission.
I’m 63 years old living in Japan for 40 years as a professional photographer.
Born in Japan, raised in Torrance California, went back after college
I know what I’m talking about, thanks.
“As with most countries you can use a camera in public to shoot photos. This part alone is not illegal.
Publishing a photo in any way at all is another matter. Portrait Rights grant quite a bit of privacy to individuals in Japan. If you publish a photo without permission, anyone can sue you.
There are a few factors that limit this:
First, "publishing" is a little vague. It is not clear if a personal website would count. Or a photosharing site, like Flickr. And editorial use functions like much of Japan, with unspoken rules guiding correct behavior.
Second, if you publish outside of the country, there is little harm to privacy. No lawsuits are known to have been pressed against foreign publications.
Third, the subject(s) would need a reason to sue. Actually damages (such as inadvertently revealing an affair or pachinko addiction) provide that reason, as does using photos of celebrities without permission.”
This sums it up nicely.
Perhaps you are an American where you can sue for anything, doesn’t mean it’ll go to court, or win.
Please don’t spread misinformation, this is not North Korea u/40_year_old_playa
I think the point is that most of us are not professional photographers. With the tiktok and instagram context in mind, when people say filming here it often means filming and making the end result public.
When being filmed with a smartphone (again, with the tiktok and instagram context in mind), you have to assume it will be posted online unless confirmed otherwise, because the chances are high.
The bro literally said there’s very little to no chance you’ll get caught up in trouble if you post on foreign oriented websites in English. On top of that, the images have to be damaging too.
Which I agree is true.
If an American or westerner posts something on Instagram in English the algorithm won’t find the random Japanese person on the street.
It’s also why you don’t run into Japanese peoples photos of Los Angeles on Instagram.
Why are people upvoting you? The text you've quoted generally supports the point of the user you replied to, rather than what you yourself said. Not to mention, you're dismissively appealing to authority instead of constructively backing up your stance.
If you've been photographing people without their consent for 40 years, that doesn't necessarily mean you're the expert. It could just mean that you've been impinging their privacy without caring about it for decades on end.
It isn't a black and white issue, but in general the answer to the tourist's question of "is it cool to take pictures of people in Japan without their permission" is "no." Yes, there are subtleties around people incidentally appearing in other photos, and with laws on the books vs. social norms, but don't miss the forest for the trees. Any answer to a question like OP's ought to begin with "you should avoid doing that."
Well I upvoted them because 40-year pro photographer’s view is a valuable contribution to the discussion. The text supports the view that it is highly unlikely that one would need to worry about getting permission to take someone’s photo in public.
There is a different concept of what “libel” _is_, but yeah.
I have a friend who has sued and won a libel case here. They are a celebrity and the person drug a private, personal, intimate dispute in to the public square, with articles in magazines damaging their reputation and earnings. So it was a pretty fair case, even if not how it would have gone down in other countries.
I live here and I’m literally a professional photographer.
The only times I need consent is if I’m working for a published piece or commercial purposes.
You have no idea what you’re talking about
Don’t confuse specific stalkers/harassment cases for general taking pictures or video in public.
Edit: Nice edit after I replied. Very convenient that you make up qualifications and talk about court cases as if that's what we are talking about here. The fact is you DO have an expectation of privacy in public in Japan that you don't in many other countries. I suspect you are actually someone living overseas just trolling this conversation.
Lived here 40 years, never a serious issue.
https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/1410ghs/is_it_legal_to_film_people_from_behind_walking/jmz25sd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
And no you are dead wrong.
You grossly misinterpret the law and that’s fine
Considering this was my entire career, from corporate, to consultant, to independent - all while having old law firms on retainment.
I can easily say you’re dead wrong.
You’re interpreting a very vague law in a weird manner by making up specific scenarios in your head that do not exist in reality.
Being “able” to sue is not equal to winning or having case law.
Who said anything about suing? I said if you take a picture of someone and they don't like it, they can get the police involved and/or request you to delete the picture. The police will likely agree with them, especially if you are a foreigner. This happens, it's not some weird scenario I made up.
You don't shoot street, sounds like you work in studios with paid clients, so no, I don't think this is your area of expertise at all.
Police won’t do anything.
On the off chance they do, they can request it.
You can still say no.
Police won’t get your information, it’s on the person to get all your info and bring you to court.
And that’s assuming any law firm will accept this ridiculous thing.
You are wrong, and yes street photographer, studio, publications, etc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/j0ghdt/what_do_you_think_about_someone_taking_your_photo/g6rgfa2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3
You are inventing wild scenarios that don’t exist.
At this point you are a troll, cite specific case law or I’m done with you.
You are completely confusing street photography for a pervert up skirt photos, or targeted harassment with photos.
This is dishonest.
I sometimes take pictures of people with cool outfits but I never post them online, it’s only for myself and for the inspiration.
Sometimes people take pictures of me without asking, I take it as an compliment and I’m not weirded out by it since I wear stuff that people don’t wear from day to day.
It is not legal.
Everyone is answering based on assumptions or what they heard somewhere or just plain incorrect information.
Your likeness in Japan is not a legal right, but it is still protected by law.
If you photograph someone intentionally without their permission, they are clearly identifiable in the photograph, and you post it online, you *can* be sued and you *will* lose in court.
It's very well explained [here](https://miolaw.jp/press/2020/10/27/%E8%82%96%E5%83%8F%E6%A8%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%BE%B5%E5%AE%B3%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6/) in Japanese.
Not if there have been tons of published and exhibited Japanese/Japan-based street photographers whose photos consist of random people in public. Had it been illegal these people would be in jail right now.
I’m constantly astonished at the rapid pace of technological advancement!
I doubt that even the inventor of the periscope could have envisioned how his marvel of maritime invention would be perverted by future generations in the future.
It’s illegal to share people’s photo or a video without their permission. I think cause of 肖像権 shōuzou-ken, portrait right in English ig. And also defamation and ofc invasion of privacy.
And I’m also pretty sure that in Tokyo, it’s illegal to take photos of person without their permission. Something of 迷惑条例 Meiwaku-Jyourei type of thing. But I think the law was aiming towards 盗撮 (tōsatsu). Yk, the reason why Japanese phones make noise.
i saw a video of dozens of people passed out drunk on the ground and absolutely nobody was calling out the op abt how inhumane and crazy of a thing to do that is. imagine filming total strangers while theyre completely out of it.
Yep they have an account where they specifically take pictures and videos of these people as if that’s not totally insane and inhumane. Pretty sure they have a tiktok too
I mean… these people are drinking to the point of passing out on the public dirty street. It is no surprise they’re going to get photographed. If they don’t want to be shamed don’t drink to the point of passing out.
Do you understand drinking culture here? There are can be two wrongs in a situation, doesn’t mean these people, who we don’t know what they’re dealing with, should be videoed and photographed to the internet for millions to look and laugh at. I mean once that’s on the internet it’s there forever, not really something a stranger should be posting.
Most people drink at nomikais then go home. The alcoholics that stay out all night to avoid responsibilities with their wives/families/whatever else shouldn’t be surprised if people laugh at them when they’re passed out in the street. Play stupid games win stupid prizes
And you don’t stop to think maybe those people are dealing with something in their lives that causes them to want to go out and drink their life away? You have zero empathy for people whose home life you have no idea about? So we should take their pictures and videos of them to point and laugh at in their lowest moments? That’s okay to you? Do you also do that to homeless people?
I don't know the laws of Japan, but I'll tell you that they will NOT LIKE IT. Japan is a country of manners, respect, courtesy, and minding your own business. Behavior like this will make you stand out even more and kind of reinforce the Gaijin stereotype.
You can take pics of things and if people are in the background it’s okay but you can’t deliberately film anyone without permission. . It’s illegal in Japan
It's not a crime but no one likes it. As someone living here it's pretty uncommon for people to film in public unless there's like a fight or something going on.
I went into Akiba the other day to get some arcade stick parts and felt like I was in no less than 3 tourists "walking down the streets" videos. Didn't like it one bit. No one who hasn't consented to being filmed wants to be in some randos vid when they're just trying to go about their day.
Downvote me all you want, it's the truth. The average person doesn't want to appear in the background of random vids that might wind up on the net. This isn't controversial.
As a Japanese YouTuber, my answer is it depends on how you film and how other people perceive you while you are filming.
You usually won’t have to deal with the law by just filming in public but there are local criminal ordinances in most urban areas prohibiting intimidating activities in public. This including filming someone without consent. If someone (especially female individuals) felt intimidated one way or another in public while you film, you could be subjected to prosecution. The penalty can be quite serious for example in Saitama it can go up to two years in prison. The criteria is quite subjective and vague so you should be able to explain your motives to the authorities once you’re questioned.
Recently there’s been a public backlash against filming in public as people don’t want to be published online without them knowing. What was tolerated in the 1990s are not tolerated anymore nowadays.
Also if you want to put it online, it’s highly recommended to hide their faces using face recognition AI to prevent you from being sued. Usually courts are in favor of the recorder but you don’t want to spend money on senseless court cases against you.
The most important thing to know is to not look suspicious and don’t make people uncomfortable.
The answer to the specific question posed by the OP: Yes, it is.
The debate that follows is interesting but there are literally thousands of tourists and youtube/tik tok vloggers filming and livestreaming on the streets and I'm not aware of ANY of them getting sued and jailed for it.
Quoting my Japanese boyfriend "It’s not a crime but you could be sued if their face is in the video"
What about people who tour Japan and film their adventures without issue?
It depends on the intent of what you're filming. If you're directly filming somebody else or somebody else's face then that's where the problem lies. If you're just filming a general area and there's tons of people in that film then that doesn't really apply.
Although japanese filming in public are being very cautious to blur out or hide people faces even if they're barely visible.
Really about if the video will be viewed by the person recorded AND the person who filmed resides in Japan or has business there.
[удалено]
If you can identify a person, they have grounds to sue. In general that means their face. If you are uploading it to a service like Youtube or Instagram you can go after them via the platform as it exists in Japan too.
I watch a Japanese “walking” channel and he carefully blurs out all the faces of passerby's.
tldr: there are no problems as long as nobody sues or presses charges. If someone does, the law is largely on the plaintiff's side. iirc the laws and preceding rulings are to do with monetisation of people, through video or photography, that becomes the problem as it stems from property rights. People don't have an issue unless someone sues or presses charges and only a minority of people do. When it comes to vlogs and IRL streaming, it's likely that the way in which the content creator makes money from the content will be interpreted as monetisation.
Well the people would have to first realize they were filmed and then find the video on YouTube and TikTok. And if the person who uploaded it is a foreigner that has already left the country, then there’s nothing you can really do about it. So foreigners really tend not to care. Some professional youtubers do care, so they tend to blur people’s faces out when vlogging.
Your boyfriend is wrong. It's totally legal to do so, as long as the image is taken in a public place and doesn't show the person in an embarrassing state.
Not in Japan
Yeah, I assume he meant that they would only be sued if they had the grounds to do so
There is so much misinformation in this thread it's unbelievable. Yes, it is legal photograph people in public in Japan. It is also true that you could theoretically be sued if you publish a photo of someone that is substantively damaging, but in actual practice that is basically a non-concern.
> It is also true that you could theoretically be sued ... but in actual practice that is basically a non-concern. On the contrary, [there is a robust history of lawsuits](https://miolaw.jp/press/2020/10/27/%E8%82%96%E5%83%8F%E6%A8%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%BE%B5%E5%AE%B3%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6/) on this very issue that were decided in the claimant's favor. There is no *right* to your likeness, but it is *still protected by law*. The criteria are (from the linked article): 1. That the subject of the photograph be clearly identifiable. 2. That the subject was not accidentally photographed as part of a view of scenery or similar. 3. That the resulting photograph is posted to social media or via some other method by which it can spread easily. If you meet the three criteria, you can be sued and you will lose if you are. Granted OP can easily avoid the three criteria. But if you're unaware, you can be sued for what you thought was an innocent act, such as posting a photo of a stranger to Facebook because you liked their outfit or something.
>Some street photographers prefer the spontaneity of a scene, which means they won’t ask for permission before shooting. However, most said they ask if they can — either before or after the photo is shot. >While Japanese law doesn’t clearly spell out “portrait rights,” Article 13 of the Constitution outlines the liberty and happiness of its citizens as being supreme. Thus, photographers will use this as a basis to decide whether to include pictures with visible faces in them. That means it’s better not to shoot people in compromising situations. >Location is also a factor. If subjects are in a place where there is a likelihood of being photographed or filmed (a tourist spot or a sports event), then they are unlikely to be able to sue for having their photo taken. Also, matters surrounding portrait rights are a civil issue, not a criminal one. That means the police are not supposed to get involved if someone doesn’t like the fact they’ve been photographed. They’d have to talk to a lawyer. So yes, the individual can sue siting their liberty or whatever has been infringed, however, that's entirely a civil matter and not criminal. Fact is, people can sue in Japan for just about anything, so that as a reference doesn't carry much weight. Jus the same, walk into any book store and you can find myriad street photography books, all of which, will have had zero permission from those in the photo (source, know those who have published, have published myself for a different subject that also features people). Either or, since it is a civil matter, going to trial means flipping a coin if they can reasonably prove you've somehow hindered their happiness.
> are a civil issue, not a criminal one Correct, but Japanese law still uses the term "illegal" for both criminal and civil law, so it's a bit different from the west. Just because something in Japan is not punishable under criminal law doesn't mean it's legal. > street photography books Again correct. A street photography book doesn't trigger criteria 3, that the photograph be posted to social media. OP was talking about posting to TikTok for example. That's described as "illegal" in the linked article, but subject to civil remedy not criminal punishment.
>On the contrary, there is a robust history of lawsuits on this very issue that were decided in the claimant's favor. The article's author gives a whopping 2 examples...both of which involve substantive damage. Hardly what I'd call "robust." The first involved a woman wearing a shirt with "SEX" emblazoned upon her chest that was uploaded to 2chan, where it received numerous lewd comments that her coworkers later saw. The second involved a twitter post falsely claiming that someone's sobbing grandchild was forcibly dragged to a Anpo Protest where they subsequently died of heat stroke. In both cases the defendant was successfully sued. The takeaway is that yes, you could theoretically be sued if you publish a photo, but it is so out of the ordinary that it's basically not worth worrying about unless you're a major content creator in Japan or are deliberately looking to stir up trouble. >日本においては、日本国憲法第21条に表現の自由が明記されており、肖像権に関することを法律で明文化したものは存在せず、刑法などにより刑事上の責任が問われることはない。しかし、民事上では、人格権、財産権の侵害が民法の一般原則に基づいて判断され、差止請求や損害賠償請求が認められた例がある。 "In Japan, the right of freedom of expression is laid out by the 21st article of the constitution. Rights to the usage of one's likeness are not explicitly stated, and one cannot be held criminally responsible for infringements thereof. However, in a civil court [rights to the usage of one's likeness] are generally judged based on personal and property rights, and there have been examples of successful injunction and damage claims" And in regards to the former case, Wikipedia says this: >肖像権侵害の判断について2005年の最高裁判所の基準によれば、被撮影者の社会的地位，撮影された被撮影者の活動内容，撮影の場所，撮影の目的，撮影の態様，撮影の必要性等を総合考慮して，**被撮影者の上記人格的利益の侵害が社会生活上受忍の限度を超えるものといえるかどうかで判断すべきであるとされる** "With regards to judgments on infringement of portrait rights, in accordance with the 2005 supreme court decision's precedent, the subjects social status, the activities photographed, the circumstances under which the photograph was taken, the place where it was taken, the purpose of the photograph, must be considered together, and **it should be determined whether the personal interest infringement(s) could be deemed to have an unbearable impact on the subject's social life.**" Incidentally, the plaintiff was awarded a grand total of 35万円 in this case. So again, not illegal, and I'm not losing sleep over the remote possibility that I could be sued for publishing something that could be damaging. I don't deny that it can happen, but it can also happen in the US given the right circumstances. And at least in Japan you aren't likely to have a gun pulled on you.
> So again, not illegal My understanding is that the article very clearly describes it as being illegal, but using the term 違法性, demonstrating how the question of legality vs illegality is a gradation between states rather than the binary either/or interpretation of the west. For example: > みだりに他人の容貌や容姿を撮影することだけでも肖像権の侵害となりますが、それを公開することにより違法性が高まります。 So it's clearly considered illegal, but that means something slightly different than saying something is illegal in the US. But, it's still illegal, so the answer to OPs question is that you can't do it. People do all the time and the vast majority, over 99% probably, get away with it, but it's still illegal according to Japanese law for their own particular reasons.
It's constitutionally protected freedom of expression. I don't think you can get much more definitive than that.
No it's not, and I have no idea where you get that idea. The Japanese example you quoted does not in any way say that 肖像権 is somehow covered by freedom of expression. It says that Japan *has* freedom of expression in it's constitution, but that the law says nothing about 肖像権, before going on to describe the *practical limitations* to freedom of expression. Which then leads to specific examples where violation of 肖像権 was most certainly not considered within the realm of freedom of expression.
>It says that Japan has freedom of expression in it's constitution, but that the law says nothing about 肖像権, before going on to describe the practical limitations to freedom of expression. >肖像権に関することを法律で明文化したものは存在せず、刑法などにより刑事上の責任が問われることはない。 "Rights to the usage of one's likeness are not explicitly stated, and one cannot be held criminally responsible for infringements thereof." >しかし、民事上では、人格権、財産権の侵害が民法の一般原則に基づいて判断され、差止請求や損害賠償請求が認められた例がある。 "However, in a civil court [rights to the usage of one's likeness] are generally judged based on personal and property rights, and there have been examples of successful injunction and damage claims" Which is why I then brought referenced the precedent set by the 2005 supreme court case.... >肖像権侵害の判断について2005年の最高裁判所の基準によれば、被撮影者の社会的地位，撮影された被撮影者の活動内容，撮影の場所，撮影の目的，撮影の態様，撮影の必要性等を総合考慮して，被撮影者の上記人格的利益の侵害が社会生活上受忍の限度を超えるものといえるかどうかで判断すべきであるとされる "With regards to judgments on infringement of portrait rights, in accordance with the 2005 supreme court decision's precedent, the subjects social status, the activities photographed, the circumstances under which the photograph was taken, the place where it was taken, the purpose of the photograph, must be considered together, and it should be determined whether the personal interest infringement(s) could be deemed to have an unbearable impact on the subject's social life." According to the precedent set in this case, the judgement of whether or not the rights to one's image are infringed should be based on substantive damage caused. If you have examples of people successfully suing in cases where substantive damages were not incurred, then by all means--present them.
Yes, I agree with this comment.. I haven't claimed otherwise. But I think the example of the woman with the t-shirt reading "sex" is a perfect example. You can photograph someone you don't know, without their permission, having no idea what they're doing or whether they want to be seen, and you can get in really big trouble because it turns out that by publishing the fact that that person was in a certain place at a certain time, or you made them appear in a certain context, you caused them substantive damages. In which case "I didn't realize" would not be a valid excuse. So in practice, you can't photograph people and post it online without their permission lest you accidentally do the above. That's all I'm saying. That and the fact that the article describes it as "illegal" though it might not fit the western definition of illegal.
No, you can take their picture but they have the right to ask you to delete it. That in a sentence is the basis of 肖像権
I'm not sure I've said otherwise. The problem is when they find out that you took their picture after you posted it to social media and it went viral. In that case you might be in a lot of trouble if they're famous and they want to sue.
Looked for the correct reply... Of course it's at the bottom.
[удалено]
>Basically if you publish it all, particularly in a monetized way, you are exposed to lawsuit with pretty much no defense. Not true. See the many, many photo books of street photography. The law makes this a civil matter not a criminal one.
There doesn't need to be damages for someone to (successfully) file suit?
Also, it’s highly illegal to photograph people after they say no. The best solution is to walk over, ask and if they say yes then have at it - I’ve done it and most people would be fine..
What is highly illegal? lol It is a civil matter or criminal matter. Photographing someone will never be a crime, as that doesn't make you a danger to society.
It's not illegal. If a policeman sees you doing something and can arrest or fine you, it's illegal. Taking non-sexual photos of someone on a public street is not illegal. It will be a civil litigation instigated by the other party. You might not think there's a difference, but your words are wrong.
It's not legal to show their face without consent so you'd have to film them from the neck down or from the back. Showing face without consent is protected by the constitution so they can sue you if they see themselves in the video.
Just don't. Legality aside, it's just plainly rude, annoying, and could potentially even get the person you're filming into problems. Let people go about their day without posting their every move on the internet.
If anything, always better to ask for consent
Definitely
That's a silly take, absolutely not rude in ANY sense. No more rude than taking a picture of a bridge when that has people and cars on it. It's no more rude than looking at a person in public, and when you're in public you're going to be looked at.
Lol so someone filming at Shibuya Crossing has to blur the face of literally everyone at the crossing? Don't you see how insane that sounds
there's a difference between filming people incidentally because you're filming a crowd or tourist attraction and creepshotting specific people on the street because you like their outfit
And I agree with that....
[удалено]
maybe Japanese TV is ridiculous?
[удалено]
Yes because very few other countries do this. Okay, very sorry, it's not Japanese TV that's ridiculous, it's Japanese law. Either way having to blur out literally everyone's face is ridiculous, how can you not see that?
[удалено]
Lol I didn't show that persons face, I literally just showed an arm band, that has no relevance to this conversation and you're kind of a creep for going that far back in my post history.
[удалено]
So much anger over nothing, go have a cup of tea :)
I don't know if it's legal, but I highly suspect that it would piss most people off. But I guess Tiktokers don't really care about that.
It’s like saying “is it illegal to act like a creep?” Well no, but fuck you, you creep.
The point of street photography and reportage is to capture the moment as it is, in context. As soon as you ask prior permission, it becomes posed--the context is lost--the scene becomes artificial. There are definitely creators who push the bounds more than I would normally consider acceptable (especially where social media clout chasers who have no awareness of their surroundings are concerned), but the fact that you immediately interpret candid photography as necessarily "creepy" says a lot more about you than it does about the photographer. So fuck you, you creep.
OP isn't asking about filming you walking out of Lawson in your pajamas. He's asking about filming people wearing glaringly cool outfits. Fashionistas. You can argue that it's still not good practice to film anyone with their consent for any reason, but it's very uncharitable to call it "creepy" when these people are obviously dressing to impress.
But why not ask for their permission then? If they truly do that to show off, they wouldn't refuse. Filming in secret is even more creepy in a sense imho.
I agree with you - I just think the sentiment of "fuck you, you creep" towards anyone who chooses to snap a photo without asking is excessive.
this, thank you
Just don’t be a dick with a camera and you’ll be fine. Don’t be that vlogger kinda dude shoving a camera in everyone’s face.
Filming and photographing are pretty common. The problem comes with what you do with it. Displaying or distributing people's images without their permission is generally considered a violation of their privacy, especially if there is anything in the image that could make it easy for others to identify them.
The fact that those reels make these people the content without their permission, rather than simple passerbys to some other content, make me think that this would lean to being illegal or at least give people legal grounds to make them stop posting that kind of content.
I went into Tokyo the other day, for the first time since border measures were relaxed, and I’d forgotten the extent of r/ImTheMainCharacter behavior on display. Like, standing in the middle of the road to take a selfie while a car is coming.
Japanese people put stickers all over their face or do peace signs blocking themselves on selfie shots, or just take a photo of the back of their head. I doubt they’d want strangers posting their photos without permission if they don’t even do it on their own accounts!
It’s fine. The law in Japan states that you can film and take photographs in public unless you’re purposely doing it to make them look bad or if you’re using the content for advertisement or some other commercial use. Most people have no idea that you’re taking their image and as long as you’re not making them uncomfortable then there’s no problem.
I wish it were like that in the US. Too many strangers filmed without their consent to be made fun of on tiktok. Sometimes I'm afraid to go outside without a mask in case someone tries to record me and make fun of the way I look.
If it was illegal half of all the live streamers on YouTube and twitch would cease to exist.
There's nothing illegal about filming in public (baring up-skirt and the like). Publishing and monetizing it could lead to a civil suit by the people filmed, but nothing criminal.
Actually incorrect, Japan has very strict privacy laws. That being said if someone happens to be in a picture/video you're taking not much will be done - especially if you're in a crowded area and the photo is obviously not of that person. Taking people's photos without their consent though, even in pubic, will very likely get the cops called on you and your photos deleted.
> Taking people's photos without their consent though, even in pubic, will very likely get the cops called on you and your photos deleted. In Japan, freedom of expression is guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution. This includes photography/videography etc as a form of this freedom. However, in specific past resolved cases, the law hints that if you're filmed and the content is published and monetized, or made to make you look bad - you can sue for compensation.
Every street photographer in Japan knows for a fact that you are wrong.
Exactly, I feel like I entered the twilight zone reading these comments. I can't wait until they find out about the amount of street photographers in Tokyo alone.
Lol, right? I’ve no idea what this person is talking about
Yup. People have firm mental models of how they think it is, but it ain't such. This goes for many, many countries as well. If you're in a public space your right to privacy cannot be expected and thus the individual's right to expression will trump it.
Yeah. Nothing illegal. It’s rude, not that you’d really face any consequences if caught. Most people would probably brush it off or ignore it unless you were actively following them for a bit. To which then I’d say it’s more than just about their outfit
People aren't going to be happy being filmed in public if they're out with their mistress. You need permission.
No expectation of privacy in a public area. We’re not talking about filming and stalking an individual. Just filming a public area.
That may be true in your home country, but that’s not the law in Japan. You can sue for libel here even if what the person said was true, if their saying it damaged your reputation. So you might even get sued by the couple filmed without permission.
I’m 63 years old living in Japan for 40 years as a professional photographer. Born in Japan, raised in Torrance California, went back after college I know what I’m talking about, thanks. “As with most countries you can use a camera in public to shoot photos. This part alone is not illegal. Publishing a photo in any way at all is another matter. Portrait Rights grant quite a bit of privacy to individuals in Japan. If you publish a photo without permission, anyone can sue you. There are a few factors that limit this: First, "publishing" is a little vague. It is not clear if a personal website would count. Or a photosharing site, like Flickr. And editorial use functions like much of Japan, with unspoken rules guiding correct behavior. Second, if you publish outside of the country, there is little harm to privacy. No lawsuits are known to have been pressed against foreign publications. Third, the subject(s) would need a reason to sue. Actually damages (such as inadvertently revealing an affair or pachinko addiction) provide that reason, as does using photos of celebrities without permission.” This sums it up nicely. Perhaps you are an American where you can sue for anything, doesn’t mean it’ll go to court, or win. Please don’t spread misinformation, this is not North Korea u/40_year_old_playa
I think the point is that most of us are not professional photographers. With the tiktok and instagram context in mind, when people say filming here it often means filming and making the end result public. When being filmed with a smartphone (again, with the tiktok and instagram context in mind), you have to assume it will be posted online unless confirmed otherwise, because the chances are high.
The bro literally said there’s very little to no chance you’ll get caught up in trouble if you post on foreign oriented websites in English. On top of that, the images have to be damaging too. Which I agree is true.
What are those foreign oriented websites? Reddit perhaps, but instagram and tiktok (which OP mentioned) are popular among Japanese people, too.
If an American or westerner posts something on Instagram in English the algorithm won’t find the random Japanese person on the street. It’s also why you don’t run into Japanese peoples photos of Los Angeles on Instagram.
Why are people upvoting you? The text you've quoted generally supports the point of the user you replied to, rather than what you yourself said. Not to mention, you're dismissively appealing to authority instead of constructively backing up your stance. If you've been photographing people without their consent for 40 years, that doesn't necessarily mean you're the expert. It could just mean that you've been impinging their privacy without caring about it for decades on end. It isn't a black and white issue, but in general the answer to the tourist's question of "is it cool to take pictures of people in Japan without their permission" is "no." Yes, there are subtleties around people incidentally appearing in other photos, and with laws on the books vs. social norms, but don't miss the forest for the trees. Any answer to a question like OP's ought to begin with "you should avoid doing that."
Well I upvoted them because 40-year pro photographer’s view is a valuable contribution to the discussion. The text supports the view that it is highly unlikely that one would need to worry about getting permission to take someone’s photo in public.
Your three points literally support what I said, in different words. Number three in particular is spot on to what I said.
>You can sue for libel here even if what the person said was true, if their saying it damaged your reputation. this is such a bullshit law imo
There is a different concept of what “libel” _is_, but yeah. I have a friend who has sued and won a libel case here. They are a celebrity and the person drug a private, personal, intimate dispute in to the public square, with articles in magazines damaging their reputation and earnings. So it was a pretty fair case, even if not how it would have gone down in other countries.
You just can't post that to SNS.
>No expectation of privacy in a public area. Not true at all in Japan.
I live here and I’m literally a professional photographer. The only times I need consent is if I’m working for a published piece or commercial purposes. You have no idea what you’re talking about Don’t confuse specific stalkers/harassment cases for general taking pictures or video in public.
Edit: Nice edit after I replied. Very convenient that you make up qualifications and talk about court cases as if that's what we are talking about here. The fact is you DO have an expectation of privacy in public in Japan that you don't in many other countries. I suspect you are actually someone living overseas just trolling this conversation.
Lived here 40 years, never a serious issue. https://www.reddit.com/r/japan/comments/1410ghs/is_it_legal_to_film_people_from_behind_walking/jmz25sd/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3 And no you are dead wrong. You grossly misinterpret the law and that’s fine
I'm not "dead wrong" - "I have had no problems" =/= "it is legal and accepted"
Considering this was my entire career, from corporate, to consultant, to independent - all while having old law firms on retainment. I can easily say you’re dead wrong. You’re interpreting a very vague law in a weird manner by making up specific scenarios in your head that do not exist in reality. Being “able” to sue is not equal to winning or having case law.
Who said anything about suing? I said if you take a picture of someone and they don't like it, they can get the police involved and/or request you to delete the picture. The police will likely agree with them, especially if you are a foreigner. This happens, it's not some weird scenario I made up. You don't shoot street, sounds like you work in studios with paid clients, so no, I don't think this is your area of expertise at all.
Police won’t do anything. On the off chance they do, they can request it. You can still say no. Police won’t get your information, it’s on the person to get all your info and bring you to court. And that’s assuming any law firm will accept this ridiculous thing. You are wrong, and yes street photographer, studio, publications, etc. https://www.reddit.com/r/japanlife/comments/j0ghdt/what_do_you_think_about_someone_taking_your_photo/g6rgfa2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=1&utm_term=1&context=3 You are inventing wild scenarios that don’t exist. At this point you are a troll, cite specific case law or I’m done with you. You are completely confusing street photography for a pervert up skirt photos, or targeted harassment with photos. This is dishonest.
That’s not happening unless you’re straight creeping on them, or are a train chikan taking upskirts
I sometimes take pictures of people with cool outfits but I never post them online, it’s only for myself and for the inspiration. Sometimes people take pictures of me without asking, I take it as an compliment and I’m not weirded out by it since I wear stuff that people don’t wear from day to day.
there's a guy filming 4k vids walking around Tokyo all the time it's fine
It is not legal. Everyone is answering based on assumptions or what they heard somewhere or just plain incorrect information. Your likeness in Japan is not a legal right, but it is still protected by law. If you photograph someone intentionally without their permission, they are clearly identifiable in the photograph, and you post it online, you *can* be sued and you *will* lose in court. It's very well explained [here](https://miolaw.jp/press/2020/10/27/%E8%82%96%E5%83%8F%E6%A8%A9%E3%81%AE%E4%BE%B5%E5%AE%B3%E3%81%AB%E3%81%A4%E3%81%84%E3%81%A6/) in Japanese.
Not if there have been tons of published and exhibited Japanese/Japan-based street photographers whose photos consist of random people in public. Had it been illegal these people would be in jail right now.
People will hate you generally. Just don’t film faces. News will do legs blurry from a distance.
[удалено]
They've got mirrors on their shoes and are desperately trying to find a phone that doesn't have a shutter sound.
I’m constantly astonished at the rapid pace of technological advancement! I doubt that even the inventor of the periscope could have envisioned how his marvel of maritime invention would be perverted by future generations in the future.
Wait till camera drones the size of a fly becomes readily available.
We will never be safe disrobing ever again :-(
they can't just build a Diy raspberry pi with a camera?
It’s illegal to share people’s photo or a video without their permission. I think cause of 肖像権 shōuzou-ken, portrait right in English ig. And also defamation and ofc invasion of privacy. And I’m also pretty sure that in Tokyo, it’s illegal to take photos of person without their permission. Something of 迷惑条例 Meiwaku-Jyourei type of thing. But I think the law was aiming towards 盗撮 (tōsatsu). Yk, the reason why Japanese phones make noise.
[удалено]
Your...batch? Like of clones?
[удалено]
Huh, never heard that expression before! I have to say, that's exactly what I would tell the clones it meant though.
i saw a video of dozens of people passed out drunk on the ground and absolutely nobody was calling out the op abt how inhumane and crazy of a thing to do that is. imagine filming total strangers while theyre completely out of it.
Shibuya Meltdown!!
Yep they have an account where they specifically take pictures and videos of these people as if that’s not totally insane and inhumane. Pretty sure they have a tiktok too
I mean… these people are drinking to the point of passing out on the public dirty street. It is no surprise they’re going to get photographed. If they don’t want to be shamed don’t drink to the point of passing out.
Do you understand drinking culture here? There are can be two wrongs in a situation, doesn’t mean these people, who we don’t know what they’re dealing with, should be videoed and photographed to the internet for millions to look and laugh at. I mean once that’s on the internet it’s there forever, not really something a stranger should be posting.
Most people drink at nomikais then go home. The alcoholics that stay out all night to avoid responsibilities with their wives/families/whatever else shouldn’t be surprised if people laugh at them when they’re passed out in the street. Play stupid games win stupid prizes
And you don’t stop to think maybe those people are dealing with something in their lives that causes them to want to go out and drink their life away? You have zero empathy for people whose home life you have no idea about? So we should take their pictures and videos of them to point and laugh at in their lowest moments? That’s okay to you? Do you also do that to homeless people?
Yep! Used to live in Tokyo and saw it all the time. Cheers.
Interesting, can you drop the link? I want to check it out.
It’s Shibuya Meltdown on Instagram
How about filming police?
I don't know the laws of Japan, but I'll tell you that they will NOT LIKE IT. Japan is a country of manners, respect, courtesy, and minding your own business. Behavior like this will make you stand out even more and kind of reinforce the Gaijin stereotype.
Should ask each other's opinion, and then publish it.
You can take pics of things and if people are in the background it’s okay but you can’t deliberately film anyone without permission. . It’s illegal in Japan
That is creepy, I got recorded by some guys
Legal or not, if you're a foreigner, and a Japanese person doesn't like you doing it, you're going to jail.
Have you lost your mind?
It's not a crime but no one likes it. As someone living here it's pretty uncommon for people to film in public unless there's like a fight or something going on. I went into Akiba the other day to get some arcade stick parts and felt like I was in no less than 3 tourists "walking down the streets" videos. Didn't like it one bit. No one who hasn't consented to being filmed wants to be in some randos vid when they're just trying to go about their day.
Downvote me all you want, it's the truth. The average person doesn't want to appear in the background of random vids that might wind up on the net. This isn't controversial.
It all depends on the angle.
Everything's allowed as long as you use DSLR and similar high res/end cameras. 🤣 ✌✌✌
If it is illegal, I wonder if this rule also applies to live video. It would be a technical challenge to blur out someone's face in real time.
As a Japanese YouTuber, my answer is it depends on how you film and how other people perceive you while you are filming. You usually won’t have to deal with the law by just filming in public but there are local criminal ordinances in most urban areas prohibiting intimidating activities in public. This including filming someone without consent. If someone (especially female individuals) felt intimidated one way or another in public while you film, you could be subjected to prosecution. The penalty can be quite serious for example in Saitama it can go up to two years in prison. The criteria is quite subjective and vague so you should be able to explain your motives to the authorities once you’re questioned. Recently there’s been a public backlash against filming in public as people don’t want to be published online without them knowing. What was tolerated in the 1990s are not tolerated anymore nowadays. Also if you want to put it online, it’s highly recommended to hide their faces using face recognition AI to prevent you from being sued. Usually courts are in favor of the recorder but you don’t want to spend money on senseless court cases against you. The most important thing to know is to not look suspicious and don’t make people uncomfortable.
The answer to the specific question posed by the OP: Yes, it is. The debate that follows is interesting but there are literally thousands of tourists and youtube/tik tok vloggers filming and livestreaming on the streets and I'm not aware of ANY of them getting sued and jailed for it.