Copyright Law in Turkey

Turkish copyright law is governed by the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 ("Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu" – FSEK), which dates from 1951 and has been adapted through numerous amendments to the international conventions – in particular the Berne Convention and the WIPO treaties. It protects works of literature, science and art, including computer programs and databases, without any need for registration. For foreign companies, copyright matters above all for software, advertising and media content, technical drawings, and the acquisition of rights from agencies and contractors.

Table of contents

• Which works are protected and when does protection arise?
• How are computer programs and databases protected?
• Who is the author and what applies to employees and commissioned works?
• What rights does the author have?
• How are rights transferred and licensed?
• How long does protection last and what limitations exist?
• What role do related rights and collecting societies play?
• How is copyright enforced?
• How does a copyright case proceed in practice?
• How do the courts assess plagiarism allegations? A recent appellate judgment
• How are rights clauses drafted correctly?
• What are the most common mistakes in practice?
• Conclusion

Which works are protected and when does protection arise?

Protection covers intellectual creations bearing the individuality of their author ("sahibinin hususiyetini taşıyan") and falling within one of the four statutory categories of works: literary and written works including computer programs, musical works, works of fine art, and cinematographic works. Adaptations and compilations – including databases whose selection or arrangement constitutes an original creation – enjoy independent protection. Protection arises automatically upon creation of the work; no registration, notice or deposit is required. For certain categories, in particular film and music works, registration and marking procedures exist with the Ministry of Culture, but these serve evidentiary and administrative functions and are not a condition of protection. Voluntary registration, notarised time stamps and comparable evidence are nonetheless valuable in practice for proving authorship and priority in disputes.

How are computer programs and databases protected?

Computer programs are expressly protected as literary works; protection covers source and object code as well as preparatory material, but not the underlying ideas, algorithms and interface principles as such. The lawful user is permitted certain acts by statute – such as making a backup copy, observing and testing the program, and decompilation to achieve interoperability within the narrow statutory limits. For databases, in addition to copyright protection of their structure, a sui generis right protects the substantial investment of the database producer for a term of 15 years. Since software protection is not a registered right, contractual safeguards – escrow, confidentiality, clear chains of rights involving subcontractors – are particularly important; in addition, software-related technical inventions can be protected under the conditions of patent law.

Who is the author and what applies to employees and commissioned works?

The author is the natural person who created the work; where there are several creators, joint rights arise. Central to corporate practice is Article 18 FSEK: the economic rights in works created by employees and other staff in performance of their duties are exercised by the employer – subject to any agreement to the contrary or arrangements arising from the circumstances. This statutory allocation covers only the exercise of the economic rights, however, and not the moral rights, which remain with the creator. For freelancers, agencies and software houses there is no comparable automatic rule: without an express contractual grant of rights, the rights remain with the contractor – one of the most frequent and most expensive mistakes in practice. Contracts for commissioned development and creative services must therefore regulate the transfer of rights expressly, in writing and individually.

What rights does the author have?

The law distinguishes between moral rights and economic rights:

• Moral rights: the right of disclosure, the right of attribution, the right to protection of the integrity of the work against distortion, and certain access and withdrawal rights. They cannot be waived or transferred; only the authorisation of their exercise is possible.
• Economic rights: adaptation, reproduction, distribution, performance and communication to the public, including making the work available via digital networks. A resale right (droit de suite) exists for the resale of original works of fine art.

How are rights transferred and licensed?

Contracts concerning economic rights require written form and must identify the rights concerned individually; blanket transfers of "all rights" do not satisfy the specificity requirement and are ineffective to that extent. The transfer of rights in future, not yet created works is invalid – in ongoing development relationships, obligation-based and successive transfer mechanisms must therefore be used. Full assignments as well as simple and exclusive licences are possible; in case of doubt, a grant is deemed a simple licence. This formal strictness distinguishes Turkish law from some foreign jurisdictions and makes the careful drafting of IP clauses in development, agency and media contracts indispensable; foreign contract templates should not be adopted unchecked.

How long does protection last and what limitations exist?

Protection lasts in principle for the life of the author plus 70 years; where legal entities are the right holders, the term is 70 years from publication. Limitations exist, among others, for private copying without commercial purpose, for quotations, for use for educational purposes, for reporting on current events and for certain uses by disabled persons; the limitations are to be interpreted narrowly and are partly subject to remuneration. Official texts such as statutes and court decisions are free of protection.

What role do related rights and collecting societies play?

In addition to the author, the law protects the contributions of performing artists, phonogram and film producers and broadcasting organisations (related rights). Collective rights management is carried out by collecting societies ("meslek birlikleri"), which grant licences and enforce tariffs in particular for music use in hospitality, retail, broadcasting and at events. Companies publicly using music or transmitting content in Turkey should clarify their licensing position with the competent societies, since use without a licence can be pursued under civil and criminal law.

How is copyright enforced?

Under civil law, the right holder has actions for injunctive relief, removal and damages; as a special feature, in the event of infringement of economic rights, an amount of up to three times the customary licence fee may be claimed instead of proven damages – a sharp instrument with preventive effect. Preliminary relief and evidence preservation are available; jurisdiction lies with the specialised IP courts. Under criminal law, unauthorised reproduction, distribution and communication to the public as well as the circumvention of technical protection measures are punishable with imprisonment and fines; prosecution generally requires a criminal complaint. For online infringements, the law provides a special notice-and-takedown procedure through the public prosecutor's office, by which access to infringing content can be blocked.

How does a copyright case proceed in practice?

A typical infringement case passes through several phases. It usually begins with the substantiation of the infringement: documentation of the infringing content (software code, image, text, design) through notarial determination or IT-forensic preservation and – where possible – the compilation of earlier-dated material proving authorship (draft files, time stamps, version history). This preparation largely decides the fate of the claim, because in Turkish procedural law authorship and infringement are questions of fact referred to expert evidence.

Before the action – and often simultaneously with it – evidence preservation and a preliminary injunction are requested: the judicial securing of copies of the infringing material, the source code or the production records, and the provisional cessation of the continuing infringement (sale, publication, distribution). This early phase is among the most critical moments of the proceedings, because it deprives the opposing party of the opportunity to alter evidence or deepen the infringement.

On the merits, the defendant typically relies on independent development (without copying), on statutory limitations (quotation, educational use) or on an allegedly completed transfer of rights – the latter defence often remains weak precisely because of the requirement of clear, written rights clauses emphasised in this article: if there is no written transfer enumerating the rights individually, the defendant's legal position also stands on shaky ground. To assess code or content similarity, the court appoints an expert panel; whether objections to the expert report are raised in time and with technical substance directly influences the course of the proceedings.

The case may end with injunctive relief and damages – or, under the pressure of the proceedings, in a settlement (a one-off payment for the past, a licence for the future or complete cessation of use). A parallel criminal complaint can serve – especially where the opposing party stonewalls on producing evidence – as an additional means of pressure and evidence-gathering via the search and seizure powers of the public prosecutor's office.

How do the courts assess plagiarism allegations? A recent appellate judgment

How the Turkish courts assess plagiarism ("intihal") allegations is currently illustrated by the appellate judgment of the Istanbul Regional Court of Appeal (16th Civil Chamber, E. 2024/489, K. 2025/1393, judgment of 12 November 2025). The claimant author argued that there were similarities between her work and the defendant author's novel in title, plot, settings and characters, and sought a declaration and removal of the infringement as well as material and moral damages under the FSEK. The action was also directed against the publishing house, which defended itself on the grounds that it had fulfilled its obligations under the rights transfer agreement with the author and was not obliged to review the content of the work.

The judgment directly illustrates the two-stage structure of proof described above (ownership of rights + unlawful appropriation): the Istanbul Anadolu IP Court held that the dispute could not be decided with the judge's legal knowledge alone and that expert evidence was mandatory; the panel compared the two works by title similarity, plot, characters, unity of place and time, and narrative structure, found that the appropriation went "far beyond inspiration, to the level of plagiarism", and quantified this share at 5%. On this basis, the court affirmed the infringement of FSEK rights by the defendant author; the publisher, having printed and sold the work, was held jointly liable under Article 54 FSEK.

On the calculation of damages, the judgment shows how the mechanisms of Article 70 FSEK work in practice: the court calculated the damages under Article 70(2) on the basis of the 5% plagiarism ratio; for the claim under Article 70(3) – under which the entire profit made by the infringer can be claimed – it rejected any reduction by the plagiarism ratio, because there it is not the actual loss but the infringer's full profit that is skimmed off. This differentiation is a clear example of how the option described in this article – "claiming the profit instead of proving the loss" – is handled by the courts.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the differences between the two works had been insufficiently assessed by the expert and that the concept of plagiarism had been interpreted unlawfully; the Regional Court of Appeal, however, found the expert report reviewable and fit to support a judgment, found no procedural or substantive error at first instance, and dismissed the appeal on the merits. The limitation defence was also rejected, because printing of the defendant's work had continued after the action was filed – in the case of continuing infringements, the limitation period starts to run anew.

For foreign investors and content producers, the judgment condenses three practical lessons: first, plagiarism allegations are not a subjective literary judgement but a technical finding based on expert evidence. Second, publishers and distributors cannot fully escape liability by invoking their rights transfer agreement with the author – the publisher is also jointly liable under Article 54 FSEK. Third, the disgorgement of profits under Article 70(3) is an independent, powerful claim which is not limited proportionally to the share of infringement but can be directed at the infringer's entire profit.

How are rights clauses drafted correctly?

Because of the strict form and specificity requirements of Turkish copyright law, every rights clause in development, agency and media contracts should achieve at least the following:

• Observe written form and name the transferred economic rights individually: adaptation, reproduction, distribution, performance, communication to the public including digital making available
• Specify the scope: in time, territory and content – including future modes of exploitation to the extent legally permissible
• Address the prohibition of advance transfers of future works through obligation-based and rolling transfer mechanisms (per milestone, acceptance or sprint)
• Close the chain of rights: warranty by the contracting partner that rights of employees, freelancers and subcontractors have been validly obtained, with an indemnity clause
• Address moral rights: authorisation of modifications and waiver of attribution to the extent legally possible
• Regulate the handover of materials: source code, open files, project documentation and access credentials

What are the most common mistakes in practice?

• Blanket "all rights transferred" clauses from Anglo-American templates – invalid or ineffective under Turkish law.
• Agency contracts without any rights clause: the rights remain with the contractor, and the company pays for content it does not own.
• The service provider's freelancers are overlooked – the chain of rights has holes that only become visible in a dispute.
• Music use in branches, hotels and at events without a licence from the collecting societies – risky under civil and criminal law.
• No evidence management for authorship: when copies appear, the proof of priority that time stamps or deposits would have provided is missing.
• The treble licence-fee damage is not asserted in the company's own enforcement, giving away negotiating leverage.

Conclusion

Turkish copyright law grants registration-free, long-term protection with strong enforcement instruments – up to treble licence-fee damages and criminal prosecution. Its pitfalls lie in contract law: written form, individual enumeration of rights and the prohibition of advance transfers of future works make carefully drafted rights clauses a basic requirement of every software, agency and media project with a Turkish dimension.

Companies should document their chains of rights – from employees through subcontractors to agencies – without gaps, take evidentiary precautions for authorship, and clarify their licensing position with the collecting societies when publicly using music and content.

The IP/IT team at GEMS Schindhelm advises companies on the copyright protection of software, media and creative projects, on the drafting of rights transfers and licences, and on the civil and criminal enforcement of copyright in Turkey.