Using other peoples content on your website under Turkish copyright law is not just a design choice; it is a legal act that can create serious liability if you ignore the rules of Law No. 5846 (FSEK).
In the language of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), however, each click is a potential intervention in someone else’s “work” (eser) and in the bundle of moral and economic rights regulated by Articles 1/B, 2, 4 and 21–25.
This text speaks directly to the website owner, the content manager, the SEO specialist: if you are using other people’s content in Turkey, what is legally allowed? Where does legitimate inspiration end, and where do FSEK Articles 35, 68 and 71 begin to bite?
1. The legal foundation: what counts as a “work” online?
FSEK Article 1/B defines a work (eser) as any intellectual and artistic product that carries its author’s personal imprint and falls within one of the protected categories. Article 2 lists works of science and literature (ilim ve edebiyat eserleri); Article 3 musical works; Article 4 fine arts; Article 5 cinema works.
For the digital world, the most important category is Article 2 – science and literature. It expressly includes:
- written and oral works,
- articles, essays, speeches,
- all types of text expressed through language and writing that bear originality.
A blog post, a legal analysis, an original product description, a carefully structured guide – all of these are typically science and literature works if they are not mere clichés or standard phrases. The medium (book, PDF, blog, LinkedIn article) does not change the nature of the work; the law looks at the content, not the format.
Photographs, icons and infographics on your site will usually fall under fine arts (FSEK m.4); videos and reels under cinema works (m.5). In short: most of the content that gives a website its character is, legally, a collection of works in the sense of FSEK.
2. What a website owner does, in the eyes of FSEK
When you operate a website, you are not merely “sharing content”. In FSEK terminology you are often performing acts that are exclusively reserved to the right holder:
- Adaptation (işleme hakkı – m.21): Translating an English article into Turkish, simplifying a dense legal commentary for lay readers, turning a long report into an infographic – all of this is “processing” the original work.
- Reproduction (çoğaltma hakkı – m.22): Storing text, images or video on your server, creating copies in your CMS, generating back-ups – these are all forms of reproduction.
- Distribution and making available to the public (yayma ve umuma iletim – m.23, m.25): Publishing the content on a publicly accessible website, sending it via e-mail marketing, or showing it in your app is communication to the public.
On top of the economic rights, moral rights apply:
Articles 14–16 protect the author’s power to decide when the work is first disclosed, to insist on being named, and to oppose distortions that harm the work’s integrity. Removing another writer’s name from an article, or cropping an artist’s work in a way that mutilates it, can therefore be a moral-rights violation even if you have some form of licence.
Unless you have explicit permission (licence or contract) or you are acting within a statutory limitation, these acts will usually be unlawful.
3. Uses that almost always require permission
3.1. Copy–paste of text from other sites
The classic infringement is simple: copying a competitor’s article, FAQ, or practice note and posting it on your own site – sometimes with two or three words changed for “uniqueness”.
Legally, this almost always infringes:
- the right of reproduction (m.22),
- the right of making available to the public (m.25), and
- moral rights, if the author’s name is deleted or replaced.
Small cosmetic edits do not turn someone else’s work into yours. If the structure, sequence of ideas and wording carry the original author’s personal imprint, your version will be seen as an unauthorised copy or derivative.
3.2. Translation and adaptation
Many people assume: “If I translate it, it becomes my work.” FSEK takes the opposite view.
- Translation, summarising, adapting to a new audience – all of this is işleme within the meaning of Article 21.
- The right to create such processed versions belongs to the original author or right holder.
Putting a translated foreign blog post on your website without permission is therefore the classic example of an infringing derivative work.
3.3. Images, graphics and stock content
Images discovered via search do not automatically fall into the public domain. In most cases they are protected photographs or fine art works under Article 4. When you save them and upload them to your server:
- you reproduce them (m.22), and
- you communicate them to the public (m.25).
Stock platforms (both free and paid) solve this by giving you an express licence, but within strict terms: commercial vs non-commercial, resale restrictions, no use in logos, sensitive industries, and so on. Using an image outside licence scope is as problematic as using an image with no licence at all.
3.4. Logos and branded material
A logo may simultaneously be:
- a copyright-protected fine art work (FSEK m.4),
- a registered or unregistered trademark, and
- an element in an unfair competition analysis (TTK m.54–55).
Using another company’s logo on your site in a way that suggests partnership, dealership, endorsement or sponsorship – when none exists – can trigger copyright, trademark and unfair competition claims at once.
3.5. Videos, music and mixed media
Downloading someone else’s video, removing credits, inserting your own watermark and republishing is one of the clearest forms of infringement of cinema and musical works (m.3, m.5, m.21–25). Even “short clips” can be problematic if they reproduce the “originality core” of the work.
4. Narrow windows of freedom: exceptions and limitations
FSEK is not merciless; it does recognise exceptions and limitations in Articles 31–38. But these are carefully drafted, interpreted narrowly, and rarely justify the broad copying that often happens in digital marketing.
4.1. Quotation (iktibas serbestisi – Article 35)
Article 35 allows quotation without permission if and only if:
- the original work has been lawfully published,
- the new work is independent – it must stand on its own,
- the quotation serves a justified purpose (explanation, critique, scientific analysis),
- the quoted part is proportionate to that purpose, and
- the author’s name and source are indicated.
On a blog, this covers, for example:
- quoting a few sentences from a judicial decision or doctrine commentary,
- citing a brief paragraph from a news article in order to criticise or elaborate on it.
It does not legitimise copying entire articles and adding “source: X” at the bottom.
4.2. Education, collections and public interest (Articles 31–34)
Some provisions allow limited use:
- in teaching and educational activities,
- in certain collections prepared solely for education,
- in official proceedings or administrative texts.
These scenarios are narrow and typically non-commercial; they do not provide a legal basis for building a commercial website whose content is heavily sourced from other sites.
4.3. News reporting and current events (Article 37)
Article 37 introduces exceptions for the use of works in reporting current events and where they appear incidentally in news material. This is tailored for classical journalism: a photograph appearing in the background of a news report, a speech excerpt necessary to convey a political event, and so on. It is not a general permission to replicate whole news articles or analyses on a commercial blog.
4.4. Private use (Article 38)
Article 38 permits individuals to reproduce works for personal use, provided that no profit is sought. Saving a judgement or article to your private device to study is one thing; uploading the same document to your public website is a qualitatively different act and falls outside Article 38.
4.5. Linking vs. copying
Placing a hyperlink to someone else’s page does not normally involve reproduction; you are merely directing the user to the original. The legal and reputational risk appears when you:
- download and host the file yourself, or
- embed content in ways that circumvent technical measures or mislead users into thinking the work is yours.
As a compliance culture, the safest approach is simple: if content is central to your site and not clearly covered by an exception, treat it as material that requires licensing or written permission.
5. Legal consequences: from takedown to triple compensation and criminal law
5.1. Civil remedies and triple licence fee (Article 68)
Article 68 gives rightholders a strong tool: where economic rights are infringed, they can demand compensation calculated as up to three times the appropriate licence fee or market value. Courts may choose this method instead of, or alongside, classic damage calculations.
For a website this means:
- a single unlicensed image or article can lead to a claim based on the fee that should have been paid, multiplied as punishment,
- interest, costs and attorney fees may then be added on top,
- claims for moral damages (Article 70) may follow where the author’s personal connection to the work has been harmed.
5.2. Injunctions and removal of content
Rightholders can bring actions for:
- prevention of imminent infringement,
- cessation of ongoing infringement (takedown orders),
- destruction or transfer of infringing copies,
- publication of the judgment.
For a business whose SEO and brand visibility revolve around specific pages, being forced to delete core content can be more expensive than the damages themselves.
5.3. Criminal liability (Article 71)
Article 71 defines criminal offences relating to unauthorised reproduction, distribution and communication to the public of works, performances and phonograms. Penalties include imprisonment and judicial fines.
In a purely civil dispute the risk is mainly financial. Where copying is systematic, commercial and intentional – for example, a portal built largely on scraped or translated content from others – criminal prosecution of the individuals who planned and executed that strategy becomes a very real possibility.
6. Building a legally safe content strategy
Against this backdrop, a legally robust content strategy rests on four pillars:
- Original content as the default rule
- Invest in your own articles, visuals and videos.
- Use clear contracts with staff and freelancers to ensure economic rights are transferred to your company.
- Licensing instead of improvisation
- Use stock image and video libraries under proper licences.
- Obtain written permission for third-party texts or graphics that are important to your brand.
- Disciplined use of exceptions
- Apply quotation rules (Article 35) precisely: limited, justified, attributed.
- Be cautious about invoking education or news exceptions unless you genuinely meet their conditions.
- Governance and internal policy
- Adopt a simple internal rule: “no copy–paste from other sites”.
- Implement legal or editorial review for content that relies on external works.
- Provide training for marketing and social media teams about FSEK and unfair competition.
- Establish a notice-and-takedown mechanism for complaints by rightholders.
Used properly, FSEK is not an enemy of creativity but its shield. It allows you to demand respect for your own original content – precisely because you respect the works of others.
Yanıt yok