In Turkey, one of the most misunderstood issues in innovation-driven businesses is who owns the results of employee creativity. A company may assume that if it pays the salary, it automatically owns the invention, the code, the design, the database, the film asset, or the technical solution produced by the employee. Turkish law does not approach the issue so simplistically. Instead, it separates employee-created inventions from employee-created works, applies different legal regimes to each, and then allocates ownership, exploitation powers, and employer rights according to the nature of the output. That distinction is critical for employers, startups, investors, R&D teams, software businesses, publishers, manufacturers, and foreign companies employing staff in Turkey.
The first legal division is structural. Law No. 6769 on Industrial Property governs inventions, patents, and utility models, including the specific rules on employee inventions and employer claims. WIPO’s latest record of that law shows the current consolidated version amended through July 28, 2020. Separately, Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works governs copyright and related rights, and WIPO’s latest record shows the current consolidated version amended through December 25, 2021. This means Turkish law does not use one universal “work made for hire” concept for all outputs. Patent-type inventions and copyright-type works must be analyzed separately.
That distinction has real commercial consequences. In a patent-oriented environment, the central question is often whether the invention is a service invention or a free invention, whether the employee made the required notification, and whether the employer claimed full or partial rights in time. In copyright-oriented environments such as software, media, design, publishing, and digital content, the central questions are different: who is the author, who may exercise the economic rights, whether the work was created within the employee’s duties, and whether a separate written contract modifies the legal default. Turkish employers who fail to understand this split often discover ownership problems only during investment, litigation, or employee departure.
Why this topic matters for Turkish businesses
For Turkish businesses, employee-created IP is often the company’s most valuable invisible asset. In a manufacturing company, it may be a device improvement or production solution. In a software company, it may be source code, database architecture, or internal tooling. In a design-led business, it may be product graphics or interface elements. In media and content businesses, it may be scripts, audiovisual material, editorial content, or music. If the legal chain of ownership or exploitation rights is weak, the commercial consequences can be severe: delayed funding, weak enforcement, failed licensing, founder-employee disputes, or uncertainty in M&A due diligence.
This is precisely why Turkey adopted a dedicated Regulation on Employee Inventions, Inventions Realized within Higher Education Institutions and Inventions Arisen from Projects Supported by Public Authorities, which entered into force on September 29, 2017 and was issued pursuant to Articles 113 to 122 of Law No. 6769. WIPO’s record of that regulation states that it sets out the procedures and principles regarding employee inventions, remuneration, and dispute resolution. In other words, Turkish law treats employee inventions as a specialized field that requires more than ordinary employment-law assumptions.
Employee-created inventions in Turkey: the industrial property regime
The industrial-property side of the problem is built on the distinction between service inventions and free inventions. TÜRKPATENT’s official Employee Inventions Guide explains, with reference to the Industrial Property Code and the Regulation, that a service invention is an invention made by the employee in the course of the activity the employee is obliged to perform for a business or public administration, or during the employment relationship where the invention depends largely on the employer’s experience and work. The same guide also states that the term “employee” covers persons serving another under a private-law contract or similar legal relationship in connection with a specific job indicated by the employer.
This definition matters because not every invention made during employment automatically belongs to the employer. The Turkish test is functional, not merely temporal. If the invention arises from the employee’s assigned work or depends substantially on the employer’s experience and operations, it is a service invention. If not, it may fall outside that category and be treated as a free invention. In practice, this makes the factual context crucial: job description, R&D mandate, access to company resources, the employer’s technical contribution, and the link between the invention and the employee’s duties all matter.
The employee’s duty to notify
Turkish law does not allow a service invention to remain informally hidden in the employment relationship. TÜRKPATENT’s guide states that, under Article 114 of the Industrial Property Code and the Regulation, when an employee makes a service invention, the employee must notify the employer in writing and without delay. The same guide explains that this duty is designed to prevent loss of industrial property rights and that early notification is especially important before any public disclosure, discussions with business partners, or publication of the invention.
The notification must also be sufficiently complete. TÜRKPATENT states that, if the employee’s invention notice is incomplete, the employer has two months from receipt to inform the employee of the deficiency and request correction. Until the deficiency is cured, the original notice is not treated as a valid notice. Once the corrected and procedurally proper notice reaches the employer, that corrected date becomes the operative notification date. This point is extremely important because the employer’s later deadline to claim rights runs from the valid notification date.
Employer’s right to claim full or partial rights
Once a valid notice is received, Turkish law gives the employer a structured choice. TÜRKPATENT’s guide explains that, under Article 115 of the Industrial Property Code, the employer may claim full rights or partial rights in the service invention, but must do so in writing within four months from the date on which the employee’s notification reaches the employer. If the employer does not make such a claim in time, or notifies the employee that it makes no claim, the service invention becomes a free invention.
The consequences of each option are very different. If the employer makes a full-right claim, all rights in the invention transfer to the employer when that written notification reaches the employee. If the employer makes a partial-right claim, the invention becomes a free invention, but the employer retains a right to use the invention to the extent of the partial right claimed. Turkish law also protects the employee in this situation: if the employer’s partial right makes it significantly harder for the employee to exploit the invention, the employee may demand that the employer either take the invention over completely or waive the partial use right. If the employer does not answer within two months of receiving that request, the employer’s right to use the invention on the basis of the partial claim ends.
This is one of the most important Turkish-law features for employers to understand. The four-month period is not a soft commercial guideline. It is a legal decision window. Missing it can change the invention’s status fundamentally and deprive the employer of the full-right path. Employers should therefore have an internal procedure for invention review, technical assessment, and written response immediately after receiving notice.
Confidentiality during the employee-invention process
Turkish law also protects secrecy while the ownership question is still being resolved. TÜRKPATENT’s guide states that, under Articles 114(6) and 115(5) of the Industrial Property Code, the employee must keep the service invention confidential until it becomes a free invention. The guide also states that, where the employer has not made a full-right claim, the employer must likewise keep confidential the information disclosed through the invention notice for as long as the employee’s legitimate interests continue.
This mutual confidentiality mechanism matters in practice because the legal status of the invention may still be unresolved when the technical and commercial sensitivity is highest. Turkish law therefore tries to prevent either side from undermining protectability during the notice-and-claim period. For employers, this also means that invention-management policy should be coordinated with NDA practice, internal secrecy rules, and patent-filing strategy.
Employer’s filing obligation and limited exceptions
A full-right claim does not end the employer’s duties. TÜRKPATENT’s guide states that, where the employer makes a full-right claim over a service invention, the employer is obliged to file a patent application with TÜRKPATENT. The guide also says the employer may refrain from filing only in limited circumstances, such as where the invention has already become a free invention, the employee consents to non-filing, or protection of trade secrets makes non-filing necessary.
The guide further explains that, if the employer makes a full-right claim, the employer may also file abroad for foreign protection. However, if the employee requests protection in foreign countries where the employer does not wish to file, the employer must release the invention for those countries and provide the employee with the necessary information and documents in time for a filing. This rule is commercially important because it prevents an employer from fully blocking foreign protection while simultaneously declining to pursue it.
Remuneration, incentive award, and employee payment rights
Turkish law does not allow the employer simply to take the invention and pay nothing. TÜRKPATENT’s guide states that the employee is entitled to payment when the employer claims full or partial rights, and that the amount and form of payment may be determined by contract or a similar legal arrangement between the employer and employee, but employers cannot make arrangements or adopt practices to the employee’s detriment. The guide also recommends that each invention be regulated separately because contribution rates, grouping, and payment structure may vary from case to case.
In addition to the main remuneration, the Turkish system includes an incentive award for full-right claims. TÜRKPATENT’s guide explains that, where the employer makes a full-right claim, the employee must receive an incentive award linked to the filing, and that the deadline for payment is no later than two months from the date on which TÜRKPATENT’s formal-compliance notice for the application reaches the employer. The guide also states that this incentive award must be separate from the main remuneration and, under the Regulation, should not be lower than the net minimum wage applicable in the relevant payment period.
The same guide explains that the broader remuneration is tied to the employer’s gain from the invention and that, if no gain is obtained from the invention, the main payment obligation may fall away, leaving only the incentive award in a full-right-claim situation. For employers, this means that invention ownership in Turkey is tied to a financial regime, not only a title-transfer regime. For employees, it means that a service invention can create continuing economic claims even after the employer has acquired the underlying invention rights.
Rights and obligations survive termination of employment
Another important rule for Turkish employers and employees is that the legal consequences do not disappear when the employment relationship ends. TÜRKPATENT’s guide states that, under Article 118(4) of the Industrial Property Code, the rights and obligations arising from an employee invention are not affected by termination of the employment contract. The guide explains that, even if the employee changes jobs or leaves the employer, the statutory procedures on notification, ownership claims, and remuneration continue to apply.
This matters greatly in real life, because disputes often surface during or after departure. An employee may leave before completing the notification process, or the employer may still owe payment after termination. Turkish law’s answer is continuity: if the invention arose during the service relationship, the relevant statutory duties generally continue. The guide also notes that disputes under the Regulation may be resolved through mediation or arbitration under the mechanism contemplated by the Regulation.
Employee-created works in Turkey: the copyright regime
The copyright side of the analysis is different. Turkish law starts from authorship, not employment. The Copyright Law’s Article 8 states that the author of a work is the person who created it. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s copyright FAQ says the same thing in simpler terms: under Law No. 5846, the owner of a work is the person who brings it into existence, a work can have more than one owner, and copyright includes both economic and moral rights. For films, the Ministry further states that the director, original music composer, and scriptwriter are joint right holders, and that the animator is also among the right holders for animated works.
That means Turkey does not adopt a blanket rule that the employer becomes the “author” just because the work was created in employment. The author remains the natural person who created the work. This point matters enormously in software, media, design, architecture, creative services, publishing, and film production. A company may control the commercial use of an employee-created work, but that is not the same thing as authorship under Turkish copyright law.
What changes in employment: exercise of economic rights
The key Turkish rule for employers appears in Article 18 of Law No. 5846. WIPO’s English text states that the authority to exercise economic rights belongs exclusively to the author, but then adds that the rights in works created by civil servants, employees, and workers during the execution of their duties shall be exercised by the persons who employ or appoint them, unless the contrary follows from a special contract or from the nature of the work. The same rule applies to the organs of legal persons. The next sentence adds that a producer or publisher may exercise economic rights only in accordance with a contract concluded with the author.
This is one of the most important distinctions in Turkish copyright law. The employee remains the author, but the employer is the person who, by default, may exercise the economic rights for works created in the execution of the employee’s duties—unless a special contract or the nature of the work points in another direction. In practice, this means Turkish law separates authorship from economic exploitation power. It is not a classic common-law “work made for hire” doctrine. It is a narrower statutory allocation of economic-rights exercise in favor of the employer.
The practical consequences are significant. First, employers should not assume that all questions disappear once Article 18 applies. The scope of employment duties still matters. Second, moral rights are not simply erased, because the law continues to recognize the work as authored by the employee. Third, where the parties want a broader, clearer, or different arrangement, a written contract remains highly advisable.
Software, databases, and the coder-versus-company problem
The issue becomes even more sensitive in software. WIPO’s English text of Article 2 states that works of science and literature include computer programs expressed in any form together with their preparatory designs, provided those designs lead to a program at the next stage. The same provision also states that the ideas and principles underlying any element of a computer program, including interfaces, are not treated as works.
The Ministry’s official FAQ then adds a particularly practical rule: for computer programs and databases, the author is the person or persons who wrote the source code. It further explains that a legal entity may apply for optional registration in its own name only if the program or database was created within the company by people employed under a labor contract to do that job and created during working hours. If the program or database was commissioned from outside natural or legal persons for payment, the commissioning party is not the author but a right holder, and optional registration in the company’s own name is not available on that basis alone; the economic rights are then exercised under the contract.
This is extremely important for startups and software companies in Turkey. If the code was written by employees within the company during working hours, Article 18 and the Ministry’s practice give the employer a strong commercial position regarding exercise of the economic rights. But if the software was outsourced, written by freelancers, or produced through a vendor relationship, the company should not assume Turkish law will solve the ownership issue automatically. In those cases, the contract becomes central.
Why written contracts still matter
Even though Turkish law gives employers significant default protection in employee-created works, contracts still matter. Article 52 of Law No. 5846 states that contracts and disposals concerning economic rights must be in writing, and the rights forming their subject matter must be specified individually. This is a strong formal requirement, and it matters whenever the parties want to clarify, expand, limit, or transfer economic rights beyond the statutory default.
For employers, this means internal employment agreements, invention policies, software development agreements, contractor agreements, and founder assignment documents should be drafted carefully. The contract should identify the scope of duties, the treatment of inventions, the handling of copyright works, confidentiality obligations, post-termination obligations, and—where relevant—the specific economic rights being transferred or exercised. In a Turkish dispute, a well-drafted document can prevent a debate over whether the output was really created “during the execution of duties” or whether a third-party contractor, rather than the employer, retained the real leverage.
The main practical difference between inventions and works
At a practical level, Turkish law handles employee inventions and employee-created works in almost opposite ways.
For inventions, the invention may begin with the employee, but the employer must react formally: the employee notifies, the employer claims full or partial rights within four months, and the law then determines who controls the invention and what payment is due. The system is procedural and time-sensitive.
For copyright works, the author is the creator from the start, but Article 18 gives the employer the default authority to exercise the economic rights where the work was created in the execution of duties, unless a special contract or the nature of the work indicates otherwise. The system is less about a post-creation claim window and more about the relationship between authorship, economic-rights exercise, and contract.
That is why employers in Turkey should never manage inventions and copyright outputs under the same internal rulebook. The legal logic is different, and so is the risk profile.
Final thoughts
Under Turkish law, employee-created inventions and employee-created works are protected and allocated through different systems. In the invention context, the key concepts are service invention, free invention, written notice, the employer’s four-month full-or-partial-right claim, patent filing duties, incentive awards, remuneration, and the survival of rights and obligations after termination. In the copyright context, the key concepts are authorship, the employer’s default authority to exercise economic rights for works created in the execution of duties, the special position of software and databases, and the continuing importance of written contracts.
For employers, startups, and investors, the practical lesson is simple: do not rely on assumptions. Build a Turkish IP structure that distinguishes inventions from works, tracks employee notifications, responds within statutory deadlines, documents remuneration, and uses clear written contracts for copyright and software outputs. In Turkey, ownership and employer rights are strong when they are managed properly—but they are rarely strongest when they are left to implication.
Yanıt yok