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 (the “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 serving the public interest.

Overall, the Draft proposes the following structural changes:

• A new institutional framework shifting the resolution of digital copyright infringements from the judiciary to administrative bodies
• A Copyright Monitoring Board vested with broad powers, and an Arbitration Commission issuing binding opinions
• A national digital works database in which works may be registered on a voluntary basis
• New exceptions not included in current copyright legislation, introduced in the name of “fair use”
• Preventive monitoring and content-filtering obligations imposed on intermediary service providers
• Granting the Board ex officio monitoring powers, in addition to the notice-and-takedown system, with respect to content causing copyright infringement in digital environments
• Revenue-sharing mechanisms among platforms, publishers, and rights holders
• Severe sanctions, 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. So as to reduce legal uncertainty, it is vital 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. Ensuring the financial and operational feasibility of the obligations imposed on intermediary service providers is also critical for the sustainability of the amendments.

1- Proposed institutional amendments

To protect, monitor and resolve disputes concerning digital copyrights, the Draft establishes a Copyright Monitoring Authority (“Authority”) and a Copyright Monitoring Board (“Board”) 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 shall 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. Members of the Arbitration Commission will be appointed by a Board decision, among experts in copyright law, IT law, and digital technologies.

A transparent and accessible central database, namely the National Digital Works Registration System (“UDES”) will also be founded to registered works in digital form. As copyright protection under Turkish law is not subject to registration, the Draft highlights that registration with the UDES is voluntary. Establishing the UDES and supervising its operation are among the duties of the Board.

2- Rights of Authors in Digital Environments

It is worth noting that the 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.

The Draft sets forth that right of reproduction, distribution, communication, and adaptation in digital media must be protected “subject to the regulations of the Board.” The boundaries of the Board’s regulatory authority on economic rights are not clearly defined.

3- 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

Authors may apply to the Board in cases where their copyrights are infringed in digital environments. The Draft provides that the Board shall take necessary measures in cases involving the misuse of available legal remedies. This assessment is typically conducted by the courts as part of legal proceedings. Granting the Board such authority constitutes a significant shift. Moreover, the scope of administrative measures are not clearly defined. This may undermine the principle of legal certainty. Disproportionate administrative measures could also endanger the right to seek legal remedies.

The Draft provides that authorship and rights infringements relating to AI-generated content will be subject to ex officio monitoring by the Board. We expect this ex officio authority to be limited to works registered in the UDES. Otherwise, a controversial situation could arise in which the Board conducts monitoring on behalf of authors that have no intent to act against infringements.

The Draft does not clearly state that registering a work with the UDES for evidentiary purposes does not amount to a consent for licensing. As a further measure, the Draft could consider allowing authors to indicate on the UDES that they do not consent to licensing their rights (opt-out).

4- 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, the signatures of two members will suffice for issuing an opinion. The Arbitration Commission is required to conclude its technical opinion on digital copyright infringement allegations within 15 days from the application.

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 provides 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. However, although it is noted that reasonable objection mechanisms will be determined “in the implementation of decisions,” it is unclear whether parties will be able to exercise their rights of defense before a decision is rendered.

Given the volume of digital copyright infringements, the workload of the Arbitration Commission is expected to be substantial. Issuing substantive opinions within 15 days may result in poor decisions.

5- Copyright Exceptions

Turkish law does not, as a principle, recognize the fair use doctrine commonly found in Anglo-Saxon systems. Copyright limitations are permissible provided that they are explicitly listed in the FSEK. While the Draft, similar to the FSEK, provides for a list of exceptions – it repeatedly emphasizes the notion of “public interest”. The Draft contains the following article: “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.” Such legal arrangements support the view that “fair use” is a deliberate choice; and the lawmaker intends to move away from the FSEK’s exception regime.

The following situations are considered “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 or study, provided that such use does not significantly conflict with the legitimate economic interests of the author.
• Criticism, commentary, and parody: Proportionate use of a work for purposes of criticism, commentary, review, parody, or caricature, without harming 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 scope of exceptions envisaged by the Draft is broader than the FSEK. For instance, the exception for criticism, commentary, and parody is not listed in the FSEK. Given the Draft’s focus on digital copyright infringements, certain exceptions will be applicable only in digital environments.

To address these inconsistencies, it would be more appropriate to refer to the FSEK instead – rather than expanding copyright exceptions indirectly through the Draft. If structural changes to the current exceptions regime are required, such amendments should be made within the FSEK itself.

6- 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.

It is expected that licensing negotiations will be initiated upon application by the rights holder to the Board. Otherwise, the new regulation 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 stated 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 criteria determined by the Board. Normally, the scope of copyright exceptions is defined by statute and developed through case law. Allowing the Board to determine the limits of these exceptions would result in judicial discretion being shared with administrative authorities.

Last but not least, it is introduced 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.

7- Liability of Intermediary Service Providers

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

Intermediary service providers whose daily average number of unique users exceeds 250,000, as determined in accordance with procedures to be set by the Board, or whose annual gross revenue exceeds a threshold to be determined by the Board, will be subject to the following obligations:

• 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 secondary 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 an obligation to establish procedures for content removal.

The Draft states that revenue-sharing provisions will apply to companies generating income through AI programs. To clarify the scope of this obligation, the notion of “AI use” should be refined, as today virtually all commercial enterprises use AI as part of their ordinary business activities.

8- Administrative Fines and Other Sanctions

Under the Draft, intermediary service providers that fail to comply with their obligations may 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 also sets forth that proportionate and graduated 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 provider.

As per the Draft, when an access ban is required, the Board shall notify the ICTA accordingly. The ICTA, if it deems appropriate upon notification, shall be obligated to take the necessary measures within 24 hours. Remarkably, making enforcement dependent on ICTA’s discretion (i.e., if it deems appropriate) adds uncertainty.

9- Incentive Programs

The Draft provides that incentive programs supported by the ICTA and the Scientific and Technological Research Council will be implemented for intermediary service providers that comply with digital copyright requirements, develop OITS, and apply fair revenue-sharing models with rights holders. These incentives will include financial support, cooperation with public institutions, technology sharing, and technical training.