KÜHEYLAN HUKUK
Unauthorized Use of Photographs and Content: Triple Compensation in Copyright Infringement (FSEK art. 68) Within the scope of the Intellectual and Artistic Works Law No. 5846, market price, triple copyright compensation, moral compensation, content removal and penalty for unauthorized use of photographs, videos and texts. This guide has been updated as of 2026, based on the Intellectual and Artistic Works Law No. 5846 and the jurisprudence of the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
A photograph used without permission on a website, social media account or advertising material gives the owner the right to demand compensation up to three times the price that could have been received if a contract had been made. For this request, the fault of the user or the damage suffered by the owner of the work is not separately proven; The fact that the party using this photo has not made any profit from this photo does not change the result. Failure to mention the name or removal of the logo is also a reason for non-pecuniary damages. In this guide, the circumstances in which a photograph is considered a work, how the triple compensation in Article 68 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK) is calculated, moral rights, content removal procedure and penalty based on complaint are explained together with the 2024-2025 decisions of the Supreme Court.
1. Is Every Photograph a Work?
According to FSEK, a work is an intellectual and artistic product that bears the characteristics of its owner and falls into one of the types listed in the law. Photographic works with aesthetic value are considered works of fine art (FSEK art.4/1-5); Technical and scientific photographs that do not have artistic qualities are protected among scientific and literary works (Art. 2/1-3). Videos and documentaries are considered works of cinema (Art. 5).
What is decisive in practice is whether the photographer reflects his own characteristics on the work with his framing, light, angle, timing and editing preferences. Having an image of a place that everyone can capture does not in itself eliminate the quality of the work. In a decision approved by the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, it was accepted that a documentary consisting of shootings in known locations in Istanbul was above a certain level in terms of cinematic expression and bore the characteristics of its owner; The defendant's defense of "images that anyone can take" did not yield any results (11. HD, 20.11.2025, E.2025/1982, K.2025/6890).
2. What Rights Are Violated?
Unauthorized use often violates multiple rights simultaneously. Financial rights protect the economic value of the work, and moral rights protect the personal bond between the author and his work.
duplication FSEK article 22 Downloading the photo and transferring it to another server or printing
Public transmission FSEK article 25 Publication on the website, social media or digital advertisement
Specifying the name FSEK article 15 Omitting the photographer's name or deleting the watermark
Prohibition on changes to the work FSEK article 16 Changing the work in a way that distorts its essence
Moral rights also continue in cases where the owner of the work allows use. In a file examined by the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals, the local court considered the failure to include the name of a photographer who made his photographs available for free use in 197 photographs as a violation of the right to state his name, and awarded non-pecuniary damages (Court of Appeals decision regarding the file: 11th HD, 06.11.2024, E. 2024/2743, K.2024/7761). Unpaid permission does not eliminate the obligation to state the name.
3. How to Calculate Triple Royalty Compensation?
According to FSEK Article 68, a person who reproduces, disseminates or transmits the work to the public without written permission may be asked for a maximum of three times more than the contractual price or market value that would have been requested if permission had been granted. This arrangement is based on a hypothetical contractual relationship. For this reason, in the file dated 2025 mentioned above, it was accepted that proof of fault and damage was not required, and that the defendant's defense that he did not earn income due to use was not effective on the result, and the decision regarding royalty compensation of 80,261.73 TL and non-pecuniary damage of 50,000 TL was approved.
The market price is determined by the expert; The recognition of the work owner and comparable sales are determined by taking into account the nature of the work, the environment and duration of use, geographical scope and whether it has commercial purposes. In the same decision, it was also found appropriate not to calculate separate market prices for each publication, considering that more than one use could be made for a single price with a hypothetical contract. Invoices previously issued by the author for similar uses are the strongest precedent in the calculation.
Instead of triple compensation, compensation for actual damage may also be requested in accordance with the provisions of tort; Fault is sought in this way (Art. 70/2). The transfer of profits made by the infringer may also be requested (Art. 70/3). In case of violation of moral rights, non-pecuniary damages are requested (Art. 70/1).
Evidence detection: Violating pages, posts and advertisements must be identified with date and address information. Since the content may be deleted, it would be appropriate to request a notary determination or a court determination of evidence.
Proof of authorship: The original file, shooting data (EXIF), initial publication records and the name or watermark on the work are the basis of the presumption of authorship (Art. 11).
Warning letter: It is requested to stop the use and pay the price. At this stage, most cases are closed amicably.
Mediation: Since cases arising from intellectual property legislation are in the nature of commercial cases, it is a condition of litigation to apply to a mediator before the case for compensation claims involving money receivables (TTK art. 4/1-d, art. 5/A).
Case: In the civil court of intellectual and industrial rights, detection and suspension of infringement (Art. 66-67), copyright compensation and non-pecuniary damages are requested together (Art. 76).
FSEK Annex-4. The article provides for a special procedure for infringing content on the internet. The rights holder first contacts the content provider and requests that the violation be stopped within three days. If the violation continues, an application is made to the Public Prosecutor's Office and the service provider is requested to stop the service provided to the content provider within three days. Content removal requests related to personal rights are subject to a different regime; This issue is also discussed separately in Küheylan Law Firm's Internet Content Removal guide.
Anyone who reproduces, processes or communicates a work to the public without the written permission of the right owner is sentenced to imprisonment from one to five years or a judicial fine (FSEK article 71/1). It is also a crime to put your own name on someone else's work (Article 71/2). These crimes depend on complaint; In order for the complaint to be valid, documents showing entitlement must be submitted to the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office within the complaint period, otherwise it is decided that there is no need for prosecution (Art. 75). The complaint period is six months from the date of learning of the act and the perpetrator (TCK Article 73/1). In practice, criminal action is preferred in parallel with civil litigation, especially in commercial-scale violations and against unidentified users.
An award-winning photographer noticed that a Cappadocia sunrise photo he shared on his social media account was used on a tour company's website and in advertising posters, without mentioning his name and with the watermark cropped. The company states that it found the photo on the internet and does not make any direct income from the sale.
The photograph's framing, lighting and timing preferences reflect the personality of its owner, so it is a work of art. Sharing on social media does not mean that the work can be used freely by others. The use of the company violates the rights of reproduction and transmission to the public, while cropping the watermark and not writing the name violates moral rights. The photographer must first have the website and posters notarized, and then request that the use be stopped and the fee be paid with a warning. If peace cannot be reached, three times the market value may be requested according to FSEK Article 68 and non-pecuniary damages according to Article 70/1. In accordance with the Supreme Court decision dated 2025, the defense that the company does not generate income does not affect the royalty compensation; In determining the current price, the photographer's previous license invoices and the scope of advertising use are taken as basis.
Does citing the source or tagging the photographer constitute permission?
No. Citing sources is a requirement of moral right; However, written permission of the author is required for the use of financial rights (FSEK article 52). In case of unauthorized use, citing the source can only eliminate the violation of moral rights.
If the photo is freely available on Google, can it be used?
Being accessible on the Internet does not mean that the work is in the public domain. Protection continues for seventy years from the death of the author (Art. 27). An image whose license terms are not specified should not be used for commercial purposes without permission.
My own photo was used in an advertisement by someone else. What can I do?
Exhibiting or otherwise presenting pictures and portraits to the public without the consent of the person appearing in the photograph is prohibited by FSEK Article 86; Additionally, compensation may be requested due to violation of personal rights. The copyright of the person who took the photo is independent of these claims.
If the violator removes the photo, will the liability for damages be eliminated?
No. Removal prevents further encroachment; However, copyright compensation and non-pecuniary damages may be claimed for past use. Claims for compensation are subject to the statute of limitations for tort (TBK art. 72).
If the photographer is an employee of a business, who owns the rights?
The rights over the works created by workers or civil servants while performing their jobs belong to the employer, unless otherwise agreed (FSEK article 18/2). However, it is necessary to prove that the photo was taken within the scope of duty; For off-duty shooting, rights remain with the photographer.
Issuing a warning without detecting the violation: If the content is deleted after the warning, the scope and duration of the violation may not be proven.
Not preserving evidence of authorship: Without original files and initial publication records, the presumption is weakened.
Requesting a fair price without precedent: When previous license invoices or industry tariffs are not presented, the expert may determine a low price.
Skipping mediation: Failure to apply for mediation in a case involving a claim for compensation will result in the procedural rejection of this request.
Failure to submit entitlement documents in a criminal complaint: If the documents are not provided within the complaint period, it is decided that there is no need for prosecution.
Unauthorized use of photographs and content is a dispute that is relatively easy to prove for the owner of the work, thanks to FSEK's three-fold compensation regulation, but is costly for the violator. Result; documentation of work ownership, timely detection of infringement, and establishing the fair value with strong precedents.
Küheylan Law Firm handles violation detection, warning, content removal and compensation processes on behalf of photographers, content producers and agencies; On behalf of businesses using content, it offers copyright law support, including license auditing and amicable resolution of disputes.
Important Legal Notice: This guide has been prepared by Küheylan Law Firm for general information purposes and does not constitute a legal opinion. Since legislation and judicial precedents may vary, a file-specific legal evaluation must be made before deciding on concrete disputes. Person names and numbers in the case studies are representative.
KÜHEYLAN HUKUK