Software is often one of the most valuable assets of a technology company. For many startups, SaaS businesses, fintech companies, artificial intelligence ventures and e-commerce platforms, the company’s commercial value may depend almost entirely on its source code, software architecture, algorithms, databases and related intellectual property.

This creates an extremely important legal question:

Who owns the rights to software developed by an employee in Turkey?

The answer is more complicated than simply saying “the company owns it because the employee was paid to write the software.”

Under Turkish copyright law, a distinction must be made between:

• authorship of the software,
• moral rights,
• economic rights,
• the authority to exercise economic rights,
• ownership of the physical or digital copy of the source code,
• and, where relevant, patent rights arising from a technical invention.

Under Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, the author of a work is the person who actually creates it. Computer programs and qualifying preparatory designs are protected as literary and scientific works. Therefore, an employee who personally writes original software may remain the author of that software in the copyright-law sense.

However, this does not mean that the employee can freely commercialise, license, sell or take away software created as part of the employee’s duties.

Article 18 of Law No. 5846 contains a specific rule for works produced by employees. Unless the contrary follows from a special agreement between the parties or from the nature of the work, the rights over works created by civil servants, employees and workers while carrying out their duties are exercised by the persons or organisations employing or appointing them.

For technology companies, this distinction is fundamental.

The employee may remain the creator and therefore the author, while the employer may have the statutory authority to exercise the economic rights in software created within the scope of employment.

For this reason, every startup and software company operating in Turkey should understand how employee software rights are structured before hiring developers.

Are Computer Programs Protected by Copyright in Turkey?

Yes.

Under Article 2 of Law No. 5846, computer programs expressed in any form and qualifying preparatory designs that lead to the creation of a computer program are included among literary and scientific works.

Copyright protection may therefore apply to software including:

• source code,
• object code,
• qualifying preparatory designs,
• specific software structures,
• and adaptations or modifications that satisfy the relevant legal requirements.

The law also protects qualifying adaptations, arrangements and modifications of computer programs.

However, an important limitation applies.

The ideas and principles underlying a computer program are not protected as works merely because they form the conceptual basis of the program. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism similarly explains that ideas are not registered or protected as works; protection relates to the resulting intellectual and artistic product rather than the abstract idea itself.

For example, an employee may create software that automatically schedules appointments for dental clinics.

The general idea of creating an online dental appointment system does not necessarily belong exclusively to the employee or employer through copyright.

However, the actual source code written to implement the system may receive copyright protection.

Who Is the Author of Software Written by an Employee?

Article 8 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works states a basic rule:

The author of a work is the person who creates it.

Therefore, where a software developer personally writes a computer program, the developer will generally be regarded as the author of the relevant protected software contribution.

The fact that the developer receives a salary does not transform the employer into the natural person who actually wrote the code.

This is why it is misleading to say that a company is always “the author” of software written by its employees.

The more accurate legal distinction is:

The employee may be the author, while the employer may exercise the economic rights under Article 18 when the software was created while the employee was performing employment duties.

This difference becomes particularly important in disputes concerning moral rights, attribution and the scope of the employer’s economic exploitation rights.

What Are the Economic Rights in Software?

Turkish copyright law recognises several economic rights.

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism identifies the principal economic rights as including:

• adaptation,
• reproduction,
• distribution,
• performance,
• and communication to the public.

In the software context, these rights may have significant commercial consequences.

For example, the economic rights may determine who may legally:

• reproduce the program,
• distribute copies,
• license the software,
• modify the program,
• create different versions,
• commercialise it as SaaS,
• make it available through digital channels,
• or integrate it into another product.

For a software company, control over these economic rights is usually more commercially important than merely possessing a copy of the source code.

What Does Article 18 Mean for Employee-Developed Software?

Article 18 is the central provision for software developed during employment.

The rule provides, in substance, that unless otherwise agreed or unless the nature of the work indicates otherwise, rights over works created by employees while performing their work are exercised by the employer.

Consider the following example.

A startup hires a software engineer as a backend developer.

The employee’s job description specifically requires the employee to develop the company’s payment platform.

Over the next twelve months, the employee writes thousands of lines of code for that system.

The employee cannot normally argue after resignation:

“I personally wrote the code, therefore the company must stop using the payment platform.”

The employee may remain the author in the copyright-law sense, but Article 18 generally enables the employer to exercise the relevant economic rights arising from software created in the performance of the employee’s duties, unless the contractual or factual circumstances indicate otherwise.

This is one of the most important protections available to Turkish technology employers.

Does the Employer Automatically Become the Copyright Owner?

This question should be answered carefully.

In practice, the phrase “the employer owns the copyright” is often used as shorthand.

However, Article 18 is drafted in terms of exercise of rights, while Article 8 continues to identify the person who created the work as its author.

Accordingly, there is a legal distinction between:

authorship

and

the employer’s statutory authority to exercise economic rights.

For commercial purposes, Article 18 may give the employer extensive power to use and commercialise employee-created software.

Nevertheless, professionally drafted employment agreements should still regulate intellectual property expressly.

This reduces uncertainty about:

• whether the software was created within the employee’s duties,
• whether earlier code was incorporated,
• whether the employee may reuse components,
• what happens to modifications,
• whether the software may be licensed internationally,
• and what rights continue after termination.

For an investor conducting due diligence, a clear IP clause is considerably preferable to an argument that the company can rely entirely on statutory interpretation.

Does the Employer Need a Separate IP Clause in the Employment Agreement?

Although Article 18 provides significant statutory protection, technology companies should still use detailed intellectual property clauses.

There are several reasons.

First, disputes frequently arise over whether a particular software project was actually created while performing the employee’s duties.

Second, employees may develop software partly during work and partly during personal time.

Third, employees may use pre-existing libraries, code or tools they developed before joining the company.

Fourth, software products are rarely static. They may involve:

• new modules,
• adaptations,
• APIs,
• mobile versions,
• integrations,
• patches,
• algorithms,
• database structures,
• and documentation.

A professionally drafted employment agreement can substantially reduce disagreement concerning all of these assets.

What Should an Employee Software IP Clause Include?

A technology company’s employment agreement should generally address at least the following matters.

Software Created Within Employment Duties

The contract should clearly identify that software and related materials created within the scope of the employee’s duties are intended for the employer’s business.

Economic Rights

The agreement should regulate the employer’s ability to exercise or acquire, as applicable, the relevant economic rights.

Where a contractual transfer is used, Article 52 of Law No. 5846 is extremely important. Contracts and legal dispositions concerning economic rights must be in writing, and the rights forming the subject of the transaction must be identified individually.

Therefore, wording such as:

“The employee transfers all intellectual property rights.”

may be less legally robust than a clause specifically addressing relevant rights such as adaptation, reproduction, distribution and communication.

Source-Code Delivery

The employee should be required to maintain and deliver company software through company-controlled repositories.

Documentation

Technical documentation, architecture diagrams, API documentation and development notes should also be treated as company materials where appropriate.

Pre-Existing Intellectual Property

Any software, library or code owned by the employee before employment should ideally be identified.

Third-Party Components

The employee should disclose third-party and open-source components used in company software.

Confidentiality

Source code and technical know-how should generally be protected through separate confidentiality obligations.

Cooperation After Termination

The agreement may require reasonable cooperation concerning IP registrations, litigation, investor due diligence or technical handover after employment ends.

Does Paying the Employee Mean All Rights Automatically Transfer?

Payment alone should not be treated as a complete intellectual property strategy.

The company’s position may be strong where an employee develops software directly within assigned employment duties because Article 18 applies.

However, payment by itself does not answer every copyright question.

This becomes even clearer with freelancers.

Suppose a startup pays an independent software developer TRY 500,000 to create a mobile application.

The startup may assume:

“We paid for the software, so all copyrights belong to us.”

That assumption may be dangerous.

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism expressly explains in its public copyright guidance that paying someone to create software does not by itself make the customer the author; the source-code creator is the author for copyright purposes.

For independent contractors, explicit written intellectual property provisions are therefore essential.

Employee vs Freelancer: Why the Difference Matters

One of the most important distinctions in software contracts is whether the developer is:

• an employee, or
• an independent contractor.

Article 18 expressly regulates works produced by employees and similar persons while carrying out their duties.

A freelancer is not necessarily covered by the employee rule merely because the company pays the freelancer.

Therefore, a startup hiring a freelance developer should generally use a written software development agreement that specifically regulates economic rights.

Under Article 52, contracts concerning economic rights must be written and must specify the relevant rights individually.

This can become critical during venture capital due diligence.

An investor may ask:

“Who built version 1 of the platform?”

If the answer is:

“A freelance developer, but we never signed an IP agreement,”

the company may have a serious ownership problem.

What If the Employee Writes the Software Outside Working Hours?

The fact that code was written at home, at night or on a personal laptop does not necessarily determine ownership or the right to exercise economic rights.

The more important question is usually whether the software was created within the employee’s employment duties.

Consider two examples.

Example One: Company Project Developed at Home

A software engineer is responsible for developing the company’s mobile application.

The engineer completes part of the coding at home during the weekend.

The software remains directly connected to the employee’s assigned duties.

The fact that the work was physically performed outside the office does not necessarily remove it from the employment relationship.

Example Two: Completely Independent Personal Project

A backend engineer working for an accounting-software company develops an unrelated music-learning application during personal time using personal equipment and without company confidential information.

The employer’s claim to that separate project may be much weaker.

The employee’s job description, instructions, company policies, use of company resources and relationship between the side project and the employer’s business may all become relevant.

Can the Employer Claim Every Piece of Software an Employee Creates?

Generally, an employer should not assume that every computer program created by an employee during the employment relationship automatically belongs to the employer.

The connection with employment duties matters.

A clause attempting to claim every piece of software the employee ever develops, regardless of:

• subject,
• time,
• company activity,
• company resources,
• or connection with employment duties

may create significant legal issues and should be drafted with caution.

A more effective approach is to define company-related intellectual property precisely.

What If the Employee Uses Company Equipment for a Personal Project?

Use of company equipment is relevant evidence, but it should not be treated as the only factor.

Suppose an employee writes an unrelated personal program using a company laptop.

That fact may violate company IT policies.

However, it does not automatically answer every copyright ownership question.

Conversely, an employee may develop company software using a personal laptop, but the software may still have been created as part of assigned employment duties.

The legal analysis should therefore examine the entire employment relationship rather than simply the device on which the code was written.

What If the Employee Developed Part of the Software Before Joining the Company?

This situation is extremely common in startups.

A developer may already own:

• libraries,
• reusable frameworks,
• code templates,
• algorithms,
• development tools,
• or previous projects

before joining the employer.

The employment agreement should distinguish background IP from company IP.

For example, the contract may contain an appendix identifying the employee’s pre-existing software.

Where that pre-existing software is later incorporated into the employer’s product, the parties should determine whether the employer receives:

• ownership,
• an exclusive licence,
• a non-exclusive licence,
• a perpetual licence,
• or another defined usage right.

Without this distinction, disputes can arise years later when the product becomes valuable.

Can an Employee Reuse Company Code After Leaving?

Generally, an employee should not assume that because the employee personally wrote the source code, the same code can be copied into a new employer’s product.

Where the software was developed during the employee’s duties and the employer is entitled to exercise the relevant economic rights, unauthorised reuse may constitute copyright infringement and may also breach:

• confidentiality obligations,
• trade-secret protections,
• employment obligations,
• and unfair competition rules.

The employee’s general programming knowledge and experience must be distinguished from the employer’s protected code and confidential materials.

A former developer may continue to possess knowledge of:

• programming languages,
• architecture principles,
• design patterns,
• and general professional skills.

But that does not necessarily permit copying the previous employer’s protected source code.

Does the Employee Have Moral Rights?

The distinction between economic and moral rights is important.

Turkish copyright law gives authors moral rights including powers relating to:

• disclosure of the work,
• attribution,
• and protection against certain modifications.

Because authorship remains connected to the natural person who created the work, employee-created software can create questions concerning moral rights even where the employer exercises the economic rights.

In practice, software employment agreements should therefore address matters such as:

• use of the employee’s name,
• publication,
• modification,
• updating,
• integration,
• adaptation,
• and continued development.

Technology products are constantly modified by teams of developers, making advance contractual clarity particularly valuable.

Can the Employer Modify the Software After the Employee Leaves?

For commercially developed software, the employer generally needs the ability to:

• correct errors,
• add features,
• rewrite modules,
• integrate APIs,
• update security,
• adapt the program,
• and create new versions.

If the employer’s ability to exercise economic rights over employee-created software is established, continued development should normally be possible within that legal framework.

Nevertheless, companies should ensure their contracts expressly contemplate modification and adaptation.

Otherwise, a departing employee may attempt to argue that later modifications exceed the employer’s rights or interfere with personal rights associated with the work.

Source Code Possession and Copyright Are Not the Same Thing

This distinction is often misunderstood.

A startup may possess the GitHub repository while lacking complete contractual IP documentation.

Likewise, an employee may possess a copy of the source code but have no legal right to commercialise it.

Ownership or possession of:

• a laptop,
• hard drive,
• Git repository,
• USB drive,
• or source-code file

does not itself determine copyright ownership.

The legal rights and the physical or digital copy are separate concepts.

For investors, both should be controlled.

The startup should have:

1. legal authority over the relevant economic rights; and
2. practical possession and control of the source code and infrastructure.

GitHub Accounts Should Be Controlled by the Company

Many startup IP disputes are created by poor operational practices rather than complicated legal principles.

For example, a developer may create the startup’s entire product in a personal GitHub account.

The company may have no administrator access.

The developer leaves.

The company then discovers that it cannot access its own source code.

Even if the employer has strong copyright rights, recovering access may create operational problems.

Technology companies should therefore ensure that:

• repositories belong to the company organisation,
• administrator privileges are controlled,
• important accounts use company email addresses,
• backups exist,
• access logs are retained,
• and offboarding procedures immediately remove former employees’ access.

Legal ownership without operational control can still leave a startup commercially vulnerable.

What Happens When Several Employees Develop the Same Software?

Modern software is often created by teams.

One developer writes the backend.

Another develops the mobile application.

Another creates frontend components.

A data scientist develops an algorithm.

A DevOps engineer creates infrastructure scripts.

Copyright questions may therefore involve multiple contributors.

The company should not wait until a dispute arises to identify who created what.

Employment agreements, Git records and company policies should establish a clear chain of intellectual property rights.

Article 18 can provide the employer with an important statutory basis for exercising rights over employee-created works, but good documentation makes enforcement and investor due diligence considerably easier.

What If an Employee Uses Open-Source Software?

Open-source software creates a separate legal issue.

An employee may have full authority to develop company code but still incorporate third-party components governed by licences such as:

• MIT,
• Apache,
• BSD,
• GPL,
• AGPL,
• LGPL,
• or other open-source licences.

Each licence may contain different obligations.

Some licences are relatively permissive.

Others may impose requirements concerning:

• source-code disclosure,
• attribution,
• distribution,
• derivative works,
• or network use.

For example, a startup preparing for investment or acquisition may discover that a developer included software subject to a licence that creates unexpected disclosure obligations.

Companies should therefore maintain an open-source software policy and a software bill of materials where appropriate.

Can the Employee Use Code Generated by Artificial Intelligence?

AI coding assistants have created additional intellectual property risks.

Employees may use generative AI tools to:

• generate functions,
• debug software,
• write documentation,
• create test cases,
• or suggest architecture.

Companies should adopt policies addressing:

• which AI tools may be used,
• whether proprietary code may be uploaded,
• confidentiality,
• training-data concerns,
• licence risks,
• output review,
• security,
• and human verification.

Uploading confidential source code into an unauthorised external AI system may also create confidentiality and trade-secret risks independently of copyright ownership.

Therefore, modern software employment agreements should increasingly be supported by an AI-use policy.

What About Employee-Created Databases?

Software businesses frequently rely on databases.

Law No. 5846 can protect certain databases where the selection and arrangement of materials meet the statutory criteria. However, the statutory protection of such a database does not automatically extend to every individual piece of data contained within it.

Separate legal regimes may also apply to:

• personal data,
• confidential business information,
• customer information,
• trade secrets,
• and database investments.

Therefore, a developer who creates a database structure may trigger several different legal issues simultaneously.

What If the Software Contains a Patentable Invention?

Copyright and patent law should not be confused.

Copyright protects the qualifying expression of software.

Patent law may protect a qualifying technical invention.

Under Article 82 of Industrial Property Code No. 6769, inventions are patentable if they are new, involve an inventive step and are industrially applicable. Computer programs are excluded from patentability as such, but this does not necessarily eliminate patent protection for a broader technical invention merely because software forms part of its implementation.

Where an employee creates a patentable technical invention, the separate employee invention regime under Articles 113 and following of the Industrial Property Code may become relevant.

Article 113 defines an invention developed as a result of an employee’s work duties, or substantially based on the employee’s experience and activities within the enterprise and made within the employment relationship, as a service invention.

This regime contains specific notification and employer-right mechanisms.

Therefore, a startup may need to analyse the same technology under both:

• copyright law for software; and
• patent law for technical inventions.

Does the Employee Receive Additional Compensation for Software Copyright?

In a normal employment context, software development may already form part of the employee’s duties and salary.

Article 18 gives the employer statutory authority concerning economic rights over works produced while the employee performs those duties, subject to the contractual and factual circumstances.

However, whether additional remuneration is owed in a particular arrangement may depend on:

• the employment agreement,
• incentive schemes,
• collective arrangements,
• additional contracts,
• and whether a separate patentable employee invention is involved.

Employee inventions are subject to a separate statutory regime and should not be confused with ordinary copyright treatment of source code.

What Happens to the Software Rights When the Employee Resigns?

An employee’s resignation does not normally mean that software previously created for the employer suddenly becomes available for the employee to take away or commercialise independently.

If the employer had the authority to exercise the economic rights under Article 18 while the software was created, termination of employment does not simply erase the company’s commercial position.

The employee should generally return:

• devices,
• repositories,
• credentials,
• technical documents,
• source-code copies,
• customer information,
• company data,
• and confidential materials.

The company should immediately terminate unnecessary system access.

What Should Be Included in a Developer Offboarding Process?

A technology company should establish a formal developer exit checklist.

This may include:

• disabling GitHub access,
• revoking cloud permissions,
• revoking VPN access,
• changing shared passwords,
• removing API keys,
• terminating production access,
• recovering company equipment,
• confirming deletion of local copies,
• transferring technical documentation,
• transferring domain and hosting access,
• reviewing unusual downloads,
• and obtaining a written exit confirmation.

For senior engineers, an exit interview should also address:

• outstanding development work,
• undocumented dependencies,
• credentials,
• third-party licences,
• and open-source components.

This is not merely an HR process.

It is an intellectual property protection process.

What If the Employee Takes the Source Code to a Competitor?

This can create serious legal consequences.

Possible claims may arise from:

• copyright infringement,
• breach of employment contract,
• breach of confidentiality,
• trade-secret misuse,
• unfair competition,
• and potentially criminal law depending on the facts.

The Ministry of Culture and Tourism notes that unauthorised reproduction, adaptation, distribution and communication of protected works may lead to civil or criminal remedies under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works.

The employer should preserve evidence immediately.

Relevant evidence may include:

• Git logs,
• downloads,
• emails,
• company-device records,
• cloud-access logs,
• USB activity,
• source-code comparisons,
• former employee communications,
• and the competitor’s product.

An urgent interim injunction may also be considered where ongoing use threatens serious commercial harm.

Can the Company Register the Software?

Copyright protection does not generally arise only through registration.

The Ministry’s voluntary registration system is intended primarily to provide evidentiary convenience and does not itself create the underlying copyright.

However, voluntary registration may be useful in certain disputes.

Companies should remember that registration documentation must be consistent with the underlying authorship and rights structure.

A company should not assume it can simply identify itself as the natural author of software actually written by employees.

The corporate rights should be documented correctly.

Why Is Employee Software Ownership Important During Investment Due Diligence?

One of the first questions a venture capital investor or acquirer asks is:

“Does the company own or control all intellectual property required to operate the business?”

The investor may review:

• employee contracts,
• founder IP assignments,
• freelancer agreements,
• GitHub history,
• open-source licences,
• trademark registrations,
• patent applications,
• domain names,
• and confidentiality agreements.

If a startup cannot demonstrate a clear chain of rights, the investor may:

• delay closing,
• reduce valuation,
• require corrective agreements,
• demand additional warranties,
• request indemnification,
• or abandon the transaction.

Therefore, intellectual property documentation should be completed before the startup becomes valuable.

Example: Employee Develops the Startup’s Main Product

Consider the following scenario.

Startup A employs Developer X as a full-time software engineer.

The employment agreement states that Developer X will design and develop the company’s SaaS platform.

Developer X writes the platform’s backend and API infrastructure over two years.

Developer X then resigns.

Developer X remains the natural person who created the relevant code and therefore may remain the author under Article 8.

However, because the software was developed directly while performing assigned employment duties, Article 18 generally gives Startup A the authority to exercise the relevant economic rights unless the contract or nature of the work indicates otherwise.

Developer X cannot normally force Startup A to shut down its software merely because Developer X personally wrote substantial parts of the source code.

Example: Employee Develops an Unrelated Side Project

Now consider another scenario.

Developer X works for a logistics software company.

At home, without using company information or resources, Developer X creates an unrelated language-learning game.

The game is outside Developer X’s job responsibilities.

The company never requested the project.

There is no specific contractual provision creating a legitimate company claim over such unrelated work.

In these circumstances, Article 18 should not simply be assumed to give the employer rights over the employee’s unrelated independent project.

This example illustrates why job descriptions and IP clauses matter.

Example: Freelancer Develops the Entire Application

Startup A has no employees.

It hires Freelancer Y to create its mobile application.

Startup A pays EUR 30,000.

There is a development contract, but the contract contains no intellectual property provisions.

The startup may possess a working copy of the application but still face significant uncertainty regarding economic copyright rights.

Unlike a regular employee relationship, the company should not assume that Article 18 automatically solves the issue.

A professionally prepared written assignment or licence structure should have been established.

For a startup preparing for investment, this problem should be corrected before due diligence.

Key Clauses for Software Employment Agreements

A startup employing developers should generally consider clauses dealing with:

• employee duties,
• definition of company IP,
• pre-existing IP,
• software development,
• economic copyright rights,
• reproduction rights,
• adaptation rights,
• distribution rights,
• communication rights,
• source-code delivery,
• documentation,
• open-source software,
• third-party code,
• AI development tools,
• confidentiality,
• trade secrets,
• cybersecurity,
• data protection,
• company equipment,
• repository ownership,
• patentable inventions,
• employee invention notifications,
• post-termination cooperation,
• and return or deletion of company materials.

The exact provisions should be tailored to the employee’s role rather than copied from a generic employment contract.

Common Mistakes Made by Startups

Several mistakes appear repeatedly.

No Written IP Clause

The company relies exclusively on general employment language.

Freelancer Treated Like an Employee

Founders incorrectly assume that paying a contractor creates the same rights as an employment relationship.

Source Code Stored in Personal Accounts

Critical repositories remain controlled by individual developers.

No Background IP Schedule

Employees later claim that important components existed before employment.

No Open-Source Policy

Developers incorporate third-party code without legal review.

No AI Policy

Employees upload confidential code into external AI services.

No Developer Offboarding

Former employees retain cloud or repository access.

No Documentation

The company cannot demonstrate who created important software.

Rights Described Too Generally

Contracts use vague expressions such as “all IP belongs to the company” without addressing Turkish statutory requirements.

Patentable Technology Ignored

A genuinely technical invention is publicly disclosed before the company considers patent protection.

Software IP Checklist for Turkish Employers

Before hiring software developers, a startup should ask:

1. Is the developer an employee or independent contractor?
2. Does the employment agreement clearly describe software development duties?
3. Does the contract regulate intellectual property?
4. Are relevant economic rights identified clearly?
5. Is pre-existing software disclosed?
6. Does the company control the Git repository?
7. Does the company control hosting and cloud accounts?
8. Are source-code backups maintained?
9. Are third-party libraries documented?
10. Is open-source use regulated?
11. Is AI-tool use regulated?
12. Are confidentiality obligations adequate?
13. Are customer and company data protected?
14. Are patentable employee inventions addressed?
15. Is there a clear developer offboarding process?
16. Are freelancers subject to separate written IP assignments?
17. Are founder-created software rights transferred or otherwise properly documented?
18. Can the company demonstrate the chain of rights during investor due diligence?

If these questions cannot be answered, the startup may have an intellectual property risk even if the product is already commercially successful.

Frequently Asked Questions About Employee-Developed Software Rights in Turkey

Does software written by an employee belong to the employee or employer?

The employee who creates qualifying software is generally the author under Article 8. However, where the software is created while performing employment duties, Article 18 generally gives the employer authority to exercise the relevant economic rights unless otherwise agreed or indicated by the nature of the work.

Can the employee take the source code after resigning?

The employee should not assume that personally writing the code creates a right to copy and commercially reuse company software after termination. Copyright, confidentiality and trade-secret rules may prohibit such use.

Does paying a programmer mean the company owns the software?

Not necessarily in every relationship. The distinction between an employee and an independent contractor is critical. Freelancer contracts should contain clear written IP provisions.

Are software ideas protected?

The abstract ideas and principles underlying a computer program are not protected as works merely because they form the conceptual basis of the software. The specific protected implementation may be protected.

Must copyright transfers be written?

Contracts and disposals concerning economic rights must be in writing and the relevant rights must be identified individually under Article 52.

Can software be patented in Turkey?

Computer programs as such are excluded from patentability, but a broader technical invention implemented through software may require separate patent analysis. Patentable inventions must satisfy novelty, inventive-step and industrial-applicability requirements.

What if the employee develops software in personal time?

Personal time alone is not decisive. The relationship between the project and the employee’s duties, instructions, company resources and confidential information must be examined.

What if the software was written by several employees?

Each creator may have authorship implications concerning individual contributions, while Article 18 may give the employer authority to exercise economic rights over works created within employment duties. Clear documentation remains essential.

Conclusion: Who Owns Software Developed by an Employee Under Turkish Law?

The question “Who owns software developed by an employee in Turkey?” cannot be answered accurately with a single statement that either the employee or employer owns everything.

Turkish copyright law creates a more nuanced structure.

Under Article 8 of Law No. 5846, the author is the person who creates the work. Therefore, the natural person who writes qualifying software may remain its author.

At the same time, Article 18 provides a powerful rule for employers: unless otherwise agreed or required by the nature of the work, the rights over works produced by employees while performing their duties are exercised by the employer.

For a software company, this means that an employee does not normally gain the ability to shut down or independently commercialise software created as part of assigned employment duties merely because the employee personally wrote the source code.

However, companies should not rely entirely on this general statutory rule.

A professionally structured technology business should also have:

• detailed employment IP clauses,
• clear developer job descriptions,
• founder IP assignments,
• written freelancer agreements,
• background IP schedules,
• confidentiality provisions,
• open-source policies,
• AI-use policies,
• company-controlled repositories,
• and formal offboarding procedures.

This becomes particularly important where software development involves freelancers.

Article 18 should not simply be assumed to provide the same protection in an independent-contractor relationship.

Where economic rights are contractually transferred, Article 52 requires written documentation and individual identification of the relevant rights.

Technology companies should also distinguish copyright from patent rights.

Source code may receive copyright protection, while a separate technical invention may fall within the employee-invention regime of the Industrial Property Code. Pure computer programs are excluded from patentability as such, but software forming part of a broader technical invention may require separate patent analysis.

The practical lesson for startups is clear:

Software intellectual property should be organised before the first developer writes commercially valuable code.

If the startup waits until:

• an employee resigns,
• a founder dispute begins,
• a competitor launches,
• a venture capital investor starts due diligence,
• or an acquirer requests proof of ownership,

correcting the chain of rights may become substantially more difficult.

A startup whose entire valuation depends on software should be able to answer immediately:

Who wrote the code?

Under what legal relationship?

What rights can the company exercise?

Was any pre-existing code incorporated?

Did freelancers sign written assignments?

Are open-source licences documented?

Does the company control the repositories?

Can former employees still access production systems?

Are patentable technical inventions properly reported and protected?

For technology companies, these are not secondary legal questions.

They go directly to the ownership, investability and commercial value of the business.

A startup may have excellent technology, strong revenue and significant growth potential, but if it cannot demonstrate a clean legal chain of rights over its software, its most valuable asset may become its greatest legal risk.