Introduction
Music licensing and royalty collection in Turkey is built on a layered legal system rather than a single contract model. In Türkiye, the core statute is Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, and WIPO Lex identifies the current consolidated version as amended up to Law No. 7346 dated 21 December 2021. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism also states that copyright protection in Türkiye arises automatically when the work is created and does not depend on registration. For artists, producers, publishers, labels, broadcasters, venues, event organizers, and digital services, that means the central legal question is usually not whether rights exist, but who owns which rights, who may license them, and how royalties should be collected and distributed.
This matters because Turkish music law separates authors’ rights, neighboring rights, collective management, broadcaster use, public-place use, mechanical exploitation, and digital exploitation into distinct legal and practical layers. A songwriter may own a composition, a publisher may administer part of the economic rights, a performer may hold neighboring rights in the performance, and a phonogram producer may control the first fixation of the sound recording. In commercial life, those rights are often licensed through collecting societies and industry contracts rather than through one simple permission. That is why a serious legal guide to Turkish music licensing must explain both the statutory rights structure and the collective-management system that turns those rights into real-world royalties.
The Legal Foundation of Music Rights in Turkey
Turkish copyright law starts with the concept of the work. The Ministry explains that, for an intellectual creation to qualify as a protected work, it must be the result of intellectual effort, bear the author’s individuality, take a concrete form, and fall within one of the statutory work categories. WIPO’s text of Law No. 5846 then expressly states that works of music are all kinds of worded and unworded compositions. This is the basic reason why musical compositions, lyrics, and certain arrangements sit at the center of Turkish music-rights law.
The same Ministry guidance makes another crucial point: copyright arises without registration. Rights exist from the moment of creation, and optional registration is only an evidentiary tool intended to make authorship easier to prove. The Ministry also states that ideas themselves are not protected and that optional registration is carried out over works, not over ideas. In music practice, that means protection begins when the composition, lyrics, or other musical expression becomes a legally recognizable work; the filing system may help later in proving authorship or ownership, but it does not create the right.
Who Owns Music Rights?
Under Turkish law, the owner of a work is the person who creates it. The Ministry’s official FAQ states that the author of a work is the person who created it and that there can be more than one owner of a work. WIPO’s text of Article 8 says the same thing and adds that the producer or publisher may exercise financial rights only under a contract concluded with the owner of the work. For music, that means the songwriter, composer, lyricist, and in some cases co-authors or arrangers remain central to the legal rights structure unless and until economic rights are validly licensed or assigned.
That principle is especially important in production and publishing deals. In Turkish law, the producer or publisher does not automatically become the rights holder merely because the work is recorded, financed, released, or marketed. The commercial chain still depends on written authority from the author or other right holder. For artists and producers, this is one of the most practical legal realities in Türkiye: a recording deal, publishing agreement, synchronization agreement, or catalogue acquisition must match the statutory ownership structure rather than assume it away.
The Economic Rights That Drive Licensing and Royalties
The financial side of the Turkish system is built around specific economic rights. The Ministry’s official FAQ summarizes these rights as the adaptation right under Article 21, the reproduction right under Article 22, the distribution right under Article 23, the performance right under Article 24, and the right of communication to the public under Article 25. WIPO’s text confirms the same structure and states that adaptation belongs exclusively to the owner, duplication belongs exclusively to the owner, dissemination and sale or other commercial distribution belong exclusively to the owner, performance in public belongs exclusively to the owner, and communication or broadcasting by radio and similar means belongs exclusively to the owner.
For music licensing, these distinctions matter a great deal. If music is reproduced on CDs or other media, the reproduction right is engaged. If copies are sold or otherwise put into trade, the distribution right is engaged. If music is played in a venue, concert space, hotel, café, restaurant, or shop, the performance right is engaged. If music is broadcast on radio, television, or transmitted digitally or by cable, the communication or broadcasting right is engaged. Royalty collection in Turkey therefore depends on how the music is used, because different uses trigger different rights and often different licensing workflows.
Written Transfers and Licenses Are Essential
Turkish copyright law is formal on rights transfers. WIPO’s text of Article 52 states that contracts and dispositions concerning financial rights must be in writing and that the rights forming the subject matter of the transaction must be shown separately. This is one of the most important drafting rules in Turkish music law. A vague oral understanding, a loosely worded email, or a generic “all rights” formula may be much weaker than parties expect if the scope of the licensed rights is not clearly described.
This rule affects songwriter agreements, publishing agreements, label contracts, synchronization deals, catalogue acquisitions, commissioning agreements, and distribution contracts. In practice, it means parties should define whether they are licensing or assigning reproduction, distribution, performance, broadcasting, digital communication, adaptation, and other uses separately and clearly. Where foreign rights are involved, it also means that a non-Turkish master agreement should be checked carefully against Turkish form requirements if Turkish exploitation is planned.
Public Performance and Public Places
One of the most commercially relevant rules in Turkish music law is the one for public places. WIPO’s text of Article 41 states that works recorded on media used for sound, image, or sound-and-image replay may be performed in places open to the public if they are used with the owner’s permission and specifically marked for such performance; where they are not specially marked, the right of the owner or the authorized professional union to demand appropriate remuneration remains reserved. The Ministry’s FAQ explains the practical effect of this rule: for the use of intellectual and artistic works in public places open to the public, whether entry is paid or unpaid, permission must be obtained by contract from the right holders or from the collecting societies to which they belong, and economic-rights payments must be made.
This is why Turkish venues cannot safely rely on the argument that they are “only playing music in the background.” The public performance of music in restaurants, cafés, bars, hotels, stores, gyms, shopping centers, and similar venues falls squarely within the licensing system. MESAM’s English-language FAQ goes even further at the practical level and states that if a business plays music through digital services such as Spotify, Fizy, Muud, Apple Music, or YouTube, or through platforms such as D-Smart, Digiturk, Tivibu, or KabloTV, the use is treated as communication through mechanical means and creates a royalty obligation concerning making the works available to the public.
Radio, Television, and Digital Broadcasting
Broadcasting and communication rights are regulated separately. WIPO’s text of Article 25 states that the right to use a work by broadcasting its original or adaptations by radio or similar technical facilities, or re-broadcasting it by cable or without cable, or performing it in public through loudspeakers or similar facilities, belongs exclusively to the owner of the work. The Ministry’s FAQ gives the operational rule for broadcasters: for radio and television organizations or other broadcasting entities to use intellectual and artistic works in their broadcasts lawfully, they must obtain permission by contract from the right holders or the collecting societies of which those right holders are members, and they must pay the corresponding economic-rights fees.
This is why Turkish music licensing for broadcasters is not limited to traditional terrestrial channels. The same economic-rights logic extends to radio, TV, cable, satellite, and digital transmission. MSG’s official English materials state that, in its representative licensing activity, music-use categories include Radio-TV, Public Places, Live Performance, Concerts and Events, and Digital Licensing, and that radio and television broadcasters in Turkey are identified, invited to contract, authorized by signing agreements, and then monitored so the resulting royalties can be distributed to members. For music users, the practical message is clear: Turkish broadcast use of music is a licensable act, not a by-product of owning the signal.
Collective Management and Professional Unions
Collective management is a central part of the Turkish system. WIPO’s latest entry for Law No. 5846 identifies the 2022 Regulation on Collecting Societies in the Field of Copyright among the law’s implementing instruments. The Ministry’s FAQ states that Article 42 of Law No. 5846 allows the creation of more than one collecting society in the same field, and it also explains that these societies are under the administrative and financial supervision of the Ministry. That combination—multiple societies in the same sector plus ministry oversight—is one of the defining characteristics of Turkish royalty administration.
The Ministry’s official list of active societies shows how this works in music. For the music sector, the Ministry lists MESAM and MSG as active societies for musical-work owners; MÜ-YAP, MÜYA-BİR, and MÜZİKBİR as active societies for phonogram producers; and MÜYOR-BİR and TSMB as active societies for performing artists. This is legally significant because royalty collection in Turkish music is not concentrated in one single organization for all categories of right holders. Different categories of right holders may be represented by different collecting societies.
For artists and producers, this means rights administration can be split. A composer or lyricist may collect through MESAM or MSG. A phonogram producer may need to coordinate with a producer-side society. A performer may belong to a performer-side society. In practical terms, one commercial use of a song can therefore engage multiple layers of right holders and more than one collecting society depending on the use and repertoire involved.
What MESAM and MSG Say About Licensing
The official English-language materials of the two best-known musical-work-owner societies are useful in understanding practice. MESAM’s FAQ states that the member’s rights arising from authorship or right ownership over musical works—including reproduction, rental, lending to the public, and the right to authorize or prohibit such uses—belong to MESAM for the purposes of its mandate, and that written permission must be obtained from MESAM and economic-rights fees must be paid for such uses. The same MESAM page also clarifies that the performance fee paid to a live artist is only the fee for the performance itself and that copyright royalties are separate and relate to the authors of the works performed.
MSG’s official English description states that it protects the rights of its members in the fields of reproduction (mechanical) and performance/broadcasting (performing), collects the royalties arising from those uses, and licenses uses such as live performances, reproduction on CDs or cassettes, and broadcasting through radio, TV, video, or digital use. MSG also states that its music-user licences can authorize the use of millions of local and international musical works in Turkey. Those official descriptions are helpful because they show how Turkish licensing practice distinguishes between mechanical and performing fields while still using collective management to aggregate repertoire and collect royalties.
Tariffs and How Royalty Fees Are Set
Tariffs are a formal part of the Turkish collective-management system. The Ministry’s FAQ states that, in their respective sectors, authors’ or related-rights holders’ collecting societies determine tariffs for payments arising from the use or communication of works, performances, phonograms, productions, and broadcasts. It also states that these tariffs are notified to the Ministry and to professional organizations representing users in the ninth month of each calendar year and then announced to the public. The same page explains that if user-side organizations and collecting societies cannot reach agreement within the relevant time frame, a conciliation commission may be formed by the Ministry with representatives of the Ministry, the Competition Authority, relevant collecting societies, and professional organizations representing users.
MESAM’s English FAQ provides a practical definition of tariff as the licence fee payable by businesses using music in areas such as general licensing for stores, restaurants, hotels, shopping centers, entertainment centers, Radio/TV, Concerts and Events, and Digital media. MSG’s English music-user page likewise states that music-usage fees vary depending on the medium in which the music is used. Together, these sources show that Turkish royalty collection is medium-sensitive and tariff-based, not entirely negotiable on a case-by-case basis.
Concerts, Live Events, and Event Organizers
Live music is a particularly important area because many users assume the artist’s appearance fee already covers copyright. Turkish collective-management practice says otherwise. MESAM’s official English FAQ states that, for live music events, the artist’s appearance fee is payment for the performance itself, while copyright payment relates to the authors of the works being performed. MESAM’s licensing page also states that for concerts and live events, venues and/or organizers responsible for the event are identified and encouraged to sign licence agreements, and where contracts are not signed, evidence is gathered and users are pursued toward licensing.
This is one of the most practical points for producers and event organizers in Turkey. Booking a singer, band, or DJ does not by itself eliminate the need to clear and pay the authors’ public-performance royalties for the repertoire performed. If the event uses protected repertoire, separate royalty obligations can arise in addition to performer fees, venue costs, and tax obligations. Turkish law thus treats live performance as a multi-rights environment.
Foreign Repertoire and International Representation
Another recurring misconception is that Turkish licensing is needed only for Turkish songs. MESAM’s official FAQ directly rejects that assumption. It states that MESAM has reciprocal-representation agreements with more than 80 foreign collecting societies and that, through those representation agreements, it protects both MESAM members’ rights abroad and the world repertoire in Turkey in the representative and mechanical fields. MSG’s English music-user page also says that its music-use licence gives access to millions of local and international musical works in Turkey.
For international artists, publishers, and digital platforms, this is a critical point. Using foreign music in Turkey does not place the use outside the Turkish licensing system simply because the repertoire is foreign. In practice, reciprocal representation means foreign repertoire often enters the Turkish market through local collective-management channels. A business that plays only foreign music in Turkey can therefore still face Turkish royalty obligations.
Registration, Producer Certificates, and Mandatory Recordation
Although copyright protection is automatic, some music-sector activities still interact with formal administrative systems. The Ministry’s FAQ explains that if someone wants to release a cassette themselves rather than through another producer, they must first obtain a producer certificate from the Ministry. The same FAQ then states that, before the product is put on the market, mandatory recordation must be completed and, after that, a banderole application must be made; duplication must be carried out in a certified filling facility. The Ministry’s page on mandatory recordation also explains that, for domestic and imported music works, the application file includes, among other things, forms processed through the relevant collecting society and documents showing transfer or authorization of economic rights.
This is especially important for producers and labels. Turkish law distinguishes between the automatic existence of copyright and the regulated marketing of fixed music products. If a producer is manufacturing and putting phonograms into circulation, formal ministry-facing steps can still matter for evidence, anti-piracy control, and lawful commercialization. That administrative layer should not be confused with the existence of the copyright itself, but it is still part of the Turkish music business.
Enforcement, Infringement, and Litigation
The Ministry states plainly that, where copyright is infringed, civil or criminal proceedings may be brought. MESAM’s FAQ similarly states that if music is used without signing the necessary licence agreement, the use constitutes an infringement of economic rights. In other words, Turkish royalty collection is not a purely voluntary settlement system. It is backed by ordinary litigation and, where conditions are met, criminal-law tools.
In practical terms, enforcement usually depends on the type of use and the quality of documentation. A venue, broadcaster, digital service, or event organizer that uses repertoire without permission risks claims based on public performance, communication to the public, reproduction, or related-rights exploitation, depending on what exactly happened. Because Turkish law also requires written contracts for financial-rights transfers and licences, poor paperwork can weaken both the user’s defense and the claimant’s ability to prove its mandate. That is why music users in Turkey should treat licensing as a compliance issue rather than an after-the-fact negotiation tactic.
Duration of Protection and Practical Value
The Ministry states that the ordinary copyright term in Türkiye is the author’s lifetime plus 70 years after death, and that, if the author is a legal person, the protection period is 70 years from the date of disclosure. It also states that once the protection period expires, the author’s economic rights end and the work may be used freely without permission. For catalogue owners, platforms, and repertory users, this matters because licensing strategy should distinguish between protected repertoire and genuine public-domain repertoire.
The broader point is that Turkish music licensing law is not only about current chart hits. It is a long-tail rights system. Old repertoire may still be protected; foreign repertoire may still require local licensing; and performances, phonograms, and broadcasts may involve layers of neighboring rights beyond the composition itself. That is why a Turkish rights analysis should never stop with the question “who wrote the song?” It should also ask who controls the master, who performed it, how it is being used, and through which society or contract the licence is being granted.
Conclusion
Music licensing and royalty collection in Turkey is best understood as a structured interaction between statutory economic rights, neighboring rights, collective management, and sector-specific licensing practice. Law No. 5846 gives authors exclusive rights of adaptation, reproduction, distribution, public performance, and communication to the public. Turkish law then routes many practical uses—public places, concerts, broadcasting, and digital communication—through collecting societies that operate under ministry supervision and publish tariffs. The Ministry’s own materials confirm that public-place users and broadcasters must obtain permission by contract and pay economic-rights fees, and the official sector list shows that different societies represent songwriters, phonogram producers, and performers in the music field.
For artists, producers, publishers, venues, and digital businesses, the safest approach in Turkey is straightforward. Identify the right holder category first. Separate composition rights from recording and performance rights. Put transfers and licences in writing with the rights shown separately. Do not assume that performer fees replace author royalties. Do not assume that foreign repertoire escapes Turkish licensing. And do not assume that commercial use is lawful merely because music is played through a subscription platform. In the Turkish market, royalty compliance is not an optional courtesy. It is part of using music lawfully at all.
Yanıt yok