Draft Digital Copyright Law

In recent years, the need for regulating rights infringements in digital environments has increasingly come to the fore. On 11 December 2025, the Draft Digital Copyright Law (“Draft”) was submitted to the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, with the stated aim of enhancing copyright protection in digital media, while safeguarding freedom of expression and access to content in the public interest.

Overall, the Draft proposes the following structural changes:

• A new institutional framework extending the resolution of digital copyright infringements beyond the judiciary to administrative bodies
• A Copyright Monitoring Board vested with broad powers (ex officio monitoring authority undermining the well-established notice-and-takedown system), and an Arbitration Commission issuing binding opinions
• A national digital works database to register works on a voluntary basis
• New exceptions not included in the current copyright legislation, introduced in the name of “fair use”
• Preventive monitoring and content-filtering obligations imposed on intermediary service providers
• Revenue-sharing mechanisms among platforms, publishers, and rights holders
• Severe sanctions and measures, including administrative fines and access ban

While the Draft offers a meaningful basis for discussions on digital copyright protection, its current form necessitates substantial revision. To eliminate legal uncertainty, it is paramount to clarify the respective roles of administrative and judicial authorities, to ensure that copyright exceptions are defined in a clear and predictable manner, and to align the sanctions regime with the principle of proportionality. The sustainability of the proposed amendments also depends on the financial and operational feasibility of the obligations imposed on intermediary service providers.

1- Proposed institutional amendments

To protect, monitor and resolve disputes concerning digital copyrights, the Draft proposes the establishment of the Copyright Monitoring Authority (“Authority”) and the Copyright Monitoring Board (“Board”) vested with administrative and financial autonomy, operating under the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, the Ministry of Interior, and the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (“ICTA”).

The Board will consist of seven members appointed by the President, selected from among two candidates nominated by the Ministry of Interior, two by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, two by the ICTA, two by the Council of Higher Education, two by the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, and two by the two journalists’ associations with the highest number of members.

Within the Board, a five-member Copyright Dispute Arbitration Commission (“Arbitration Commission”) will be established to provide technical opinions on allegations of digital copyright infringement. The members of the Arbitration Commission will be appointed by a Board decision, among experts in copyright law, IT law, and digital technologies.

The National Digital Works Registration System (“UDES”), a transparent and accessible central database, will be founded to register works in digital format. As copyright protection under Turkish law is not subject to registration, the Draft highlights that UDES registration is voluntary.

The currently in effect Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“FSEK”) is capable of protecting moral and economic rights in digital environments. The Draft intends to introduce faster administrative remedies for authors to seek redress against digital infringements.

2- The Duties of the Board

The Draft sets out the main duties of the Board as follows:

• Rendering decisions on digital copyright infringement complaints within seven days
• Monitoring intermediary service providers’ compliance with obligations under the Draft and taking necessary administrative measures in case of non-compliance
• Establishing, managing, and supervising the UDES database
• Providing guidance on licensing agreements between rights holders and intermediary service providers, and facilitating conciliation in case of disputes

The Draft grants the Board the authority to take necessary measures against misuse of available legal remedies by rights holders. The conferral of this authority to an administrative body constitutes a significant shift, since bad faith assessment is typically carried out by the courts during legal proceedings. Furthermore, the administrative measures are not clearly defined, raising concerns in terms of the principle of legal certainty. Disproportionate measures against the so-called misuse could also endanger the right to seek legal remedies.

The Draft empowers the Board to conduct ex officio monitoring on authorship and infringements arising from AI-generated content. Although not clearly defined in the Draft, ex officio monitoring is expected to be limited to the works registered in UDES.  The proposed ex officio monitoring system would undermine the well-established notice-and-takedown practice, which is initiated upon the complaint of the right holders.

3- The Duties of the Arbitration Commission

The Draft does not clearly regulate the order in which the Board and/or the Arbitration Commission will become involved.

Although the Arbitration Commission consists of five members, two signatures will be sufficient for issuing an opinion. The Arbitration Commission must conclude its technical opinion on digital copyright infringement allegations within 15 days from the application. Considering the high volume of digital copyright infringements, the workload of the Arbitration Commission is expected to be substantial.

According to the Draft, the Arbitration Commission’s opinions are binding and constitute evidence eligible for submission to judicial authorities and other institutions. The Draft further notes that Arbitration Commission decisions are binding on the parties and will be given priority consideration by courts.

The Draft expressly reserves the right to challenge Board decisions before the courts. The Draft states that reasonable objection mechanisms will be determined “in the implementation of decisions”. However, it is unclear whether the parties will be able to exercise their rights of defense before a decision is rendered.

4- Fair Use

Turkish law does not recognize the fair use doctrine commonly found in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions. Copyright limitations are permissible provided that they are explicitly listed in the law. The Draft provides for a list of exceptions; however, it also contains the following wording: “The boundaries of fair use shall be determined by taking into account the purpose and nature of the use of the work or content, the amount and significance of the portion used, the degree of impact on the copyright holder’s potential market and the value of the work.” The notion of public interest is also repeatedly emphasized in the Draft. Therefore, it is safe to say that “fair use” is a deliberate choice of word; and the Draft intends to move away from the exceptions regime.

The following grounds are considered as “fair use” under the Draft:

• Education and scientific research: Quotation from works with attribution and for non-commercial purposes, in educational institutions or for scientific research – provided that such use does not significantly conflict with the legitimate economic interests of the author.
• Criticism, commentary, and parody: Proportionate use for purposes of criticism, commentary, review, parody, or caricature, without harm to the essence of the work, assessed in light of the nature and economic impact of the work.
• News reporting: Use with attribution, of parts of works or content necessary for understanding current events, taking into account freedom of the press and the public interest.
• Archiving and preservation: Copying by public institutions such as libraries, archives, and museums for purposes of preservation, archiving, and ensuring accessibility.
• Access for persons with disabilities: Non-commercial copying in special formats to enable access for persons with disabilities.

The exceptions envisaged by the Draft are broader than FSEK. For instance, criticism, commentary, and parody are not listed as exceptions in FSEK. Given the Draft’s focus on digital copyright infringements, certain exceptions will only be applicable in digital environments.

5- Digital Content of Press Publishers

The Draft provides that the direct or indirect making available of digital content (in particular news articles, articles, and visuals) via search engines, algorithms, or similar digital platforms will only be permitted through license agreements with rights holders. Such license agreements must be fair, balanced, and protective of independent content producers. Where no agreement can be reached, the Board is authorized to mediate between the parties and determine an equitable royalty.

Although not clear from the Draft, it is expected that licensing negotiations will be initiated upon application by rights holders. Otherwise, the Draft could be interpreted as introducing a compulsory licensing mechanism – which does not appear to be the intention of the Draft.

The Draft further provides that the use of short excerpts or headlines, accompanied by a link to the relevant news, will not require a license agreement – provided that the use does not harm the author’s economic interests and serves a legitimate purpose. It is also indicated that the public’s right to receive news and freedom of the press will be observed, and that the boundaries between commercial use and use in the public interest will be assessed based on the criteria determined by the Board.

The Draft also introduces that at least 30% of revenue generated from platform agreements will be distributed as author remuneration to reporters, writers, and photo/video journalists. The minimum share may be increased through collective agreements.

6- Liability of Intermediary Service Providers

The Draft is very broad in its definition of intermediary service providers: “any digital platforms and services that enable users to upload, store, or share content on the internet”.

Intermediary service providers (i) whose daily average number of unique users exceeds 250,000; or, (ii) whose annual gross revenue exceeds a certain threshold as determined by the Board, will be obligated to:

• Establish an Automated Content Recognition System (“OITS”), defined as software or algorithms used to detect copyright infringements in digital content. The Draft requires OITS to be compatible with databases provided by rights holders. From a technical standpoint, requiring compatibility with all databases raises interoperability and scalability concerns.
• Prevent infringing content from being uploaded and promptly remove or block access to infringing content once detected – before receiving any notice. This goes beyond the notice-and-takedown principle and effectively imposes law-enforcement-type monitoring duties on platforms. The financial and operational feasibility of this obligation is also challenging.
• Share, in a transparent and fair manner, the revenues generated from content used on the platform with authors (and related rights holders), in accordance with general principles or sectoral practices determined by the Board.
• Conduct licensing negotiations on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
• Review copyright infringement notices submitted by rights holders within 24 hours in cases of clear infringement, and within 72 hours in other cases, and either remove the content or allow it to remain available. Provide an objection mechanism to protect users against erroneous or bad-faith notices. Provide objection mechanisms against erroneous or malicious notices.
• Inform users of available objection mechanisms.
• Submit annual transparent reports to the Board on copyright infringement notices, removed content, the effectiveness of OITS, and revenue sharing with rights holders.

Intermediary service providers that do not exceed the thresholds set out above will also be subject to the obligation to establish procedures for content removal.

The Draft states that revenue-sharing provisions will apply to companies generating income through AI programs. For clarification purposes, “generating income through AI programs” should be elaborated, given that AI is now widely embedded in ordinary business operations.

7- Administrative Fines and Other Sanctions

Intermediary service providers that fail to comply with their obligations will be fined by the Board in an amount ranging from 1% to 5% of their annual revenue in Türkiye. The absence of a distinction between net and gross revenue is problematic. The Draft further provides that in cases of repeated infringements or gross fault, this rate may be increased to up to 10%. Given the high number of copyright infringements occurring on large scale digital platforms, the Draft in its current form may lead to disproportionate and inequitable outcomes.

The Draft notes that proportionate sanctions will be imposed on small and medium-sized “content providers”. The reference to “content providers” appears to have been made in error; and that the lawmaker intends to instead refer to small and medium-sized intermediary service providers.

As per the Draft, when an access ban is required, the Board will notify ICTA accordingly. If ICTA deems appropriate upon notification, it will be obligated to take necessary measures within 24 hours. Enforcement capability dependent on ICTA’s discretion (i.e., if it deems appropriate) creates uncertainty as to whether the remedy is enforceable at all.

8- Incentive Programs

Incentive programs supported by ICTA and the Scientific and Technological Research Council will be implemented for intermediary service providers that comply with the obligations in the Draft. These incentives will include financial support, cooperation with public institutions, technology sharing, and technical training.