General Framework and Purpose
On 11 December 2025, the Digital Copyright Law Proposal (“the Proposal”) was submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, having been prepared based on the assessment that the existing legal framework has become insufficient to address copyright infringements accelerated by digitalisation. The explanatory memorandum emphasises that practices such as the unauthorised reproduction of news content, the widespread circulation of pirated music and cinematographic works, and the uncontrolled dissemination of copyrighted material on social media and user-generated content platforms not only undermine the economic sustainability of creative industries but also disrupt the balance between the public interest and freedom of expression.
The Proposal seeks to address these challenges not through a purely punitive approach, but by introducing a new model of copyright protection that simultaneously employs administrative, technical, and economic instruments. In this respect, it aims to move copyright law beyond the traditional “rights infringement–judicial enforcement” paradigm and to establish a regulatory regime aligned with the realities of the platform economy and algorithmic content circulation.
In summary, the Proposal aims to (i) ensure the effective protection of copyright in digital environments, (ii) safeguard access to content serving the public interest, and (iii) establish a proportionate balance between freedom of expression and copyright protection.
This approach reflects the objective of the Proposal to establish a comprehensive regulatory framework encompassing not only right holders, but also users and intermediary service providers. The goal is to establish a framework for copyright law that focuses on systematic risks beyond individual infringements.
One of the most noteworthy aspects of the Proposal is its clear and systematic definition of the core concepts of the digital copyright ecosystem. These definitions, introduced in Turkish law in such a comprehensive manner, are intended to ensure consistency in practice and to reduce interpretative divergences.
Corporate Structure, Sanctions, and Incentives
The operational core of the regulation is formed by the Copyright Monitoring Board (“the Board”), a specialized body in the field of digital copyright endowed with administrative and financial autonomy. This structure is designed not merely as a supervisory mechanism, but also as a “balancing authority” between platforms and right holders. In particular, the Board is vested with the power to directly determine licensing fees in the event of disputes, to prevent the economic losses that may arise from protracted judicial proceedings.
Sanctions imposed by the Board are structured primarily as turnover-based administrative fines (ranging from 1% to 5%, and up to 10% in cases of repeated violations), while a graduated access-blocking mechanism to be implemented through the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (“BTK”) is envisaged for serious infringements. Conversely, the regulation also provides for incentive and support programmes for compliant platforms, thereby aiming to ensure that the regulatory regime is not based solely on punitive measures.
Sanctions imposed by the Board are structured primarily as turnover-based administrative fines (ranging from 1% to 5%, and up to 10% in cases of repeated violations), while a graduated access-blocking mechanism to be implemented through the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (“BTK”) is envisaged for serious infringements. Conversely, the regulation also provides for incentive and support programmes for compliant platforms, thereby aiming to ensure that the regulatory regime is not based solely on punitive measures.
Platform Responsibilities and Proactive Copyright Protection
At the heart of the Proposal are proactive copyright compliance obligations imposed on platforms exceeding a certain scale. For platforms with an average of more than 250,000 daily unique users or exceeding a specified turnover threshold, the following obligations are envisaged:
- the implementation of automated content recognition systems (Content ID),
- the adoption of technical measures aimed at preventing infringements,
- rapid takedown and access-blocking mechanisms,
- revenue-sharing arrangements and transparency reporting obligations.
This framework constitutes a hybrid model that synthesises the platform liability approach under Article 17 of the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (“the EU DSM Directive”) with the procedural mechanisms established under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Rights of Press Publishers and News Content
The Proposal establishes a new economic right specific to press publishers regarding the use of news content by digital platforms. This regulation is based on the press publishers' right model set out in Article 15 of the EU DSM Directive; however, it establishes a more centralized structure by granting the Board the authority to determine the fee in cases where no agreement can be reached on the license fee.
As an important innovation, the Proposal mandates that at least 30% of the revenue generated from platforms be distributed directly to journalists and content creators. In this respect, the Proposal protects not only institutional publishers but also individual labour.
Fair Use, Exceptions, and Freedom of Expression
The Proposal partially departs from the traditionally limited and enumerated exceptions approach adopted in Turkish copyright law, introducing a more flexible fair use regime better aligned with digital content practices. In this framework, fair use is defined through a four-factor assessment test, namely: (i) the purpose and character of the use, (ii) the nature of the copyrighted work, (iii) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (iv) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or economic value of the work. In this respect, the Proposal offers a normative response to the long-standing critique that the rigid exception structure under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“FSEK”) is insufficient to address the rapid, pluralistic, and creative forms of use prevailing in digital environments. This approach largely converges with the fair use doctrine under US law; however, by leaving the assessment primarily to administrative and judicial authorities, it creates a framework that could give rise to new areas of interpretation and uncertainty in practice.
In addition, the Proposal specifies the areas where fair use may apply by expressly permitting, without prior authorization, uses for purposes such as education and scientific research, criticism and commentary, parody and caricature, reporting on current events, and conversion into accessible formats for persons with disabilities. The application of the fair use test in these contexts is designed to strike a proportionate balance between copyright protection and the freedoms of expression, as well as the freedoms of science and the arts.
Conclusion and Evaluations
The 2025 Digital Copyright Law Proposal stands out as a comprehensive legislative initiative aimed at aligning Turkish copyright law with the realities of digital content production, the platform economy, and algorithmic distribution. While strengthening the protection of right holders, the Proposal also positions platforms as actors bearing more proactive responsibilities and, through its fair use approach, aspires to establish a new balance between freedom of expression and copyright protection. In this respect, it can be said to offer a more holistic framework compared to the existing fragmented and reactive copyright regime.
Nevertheless, automated content recognition systems, the broad discretionary powers conferred upon administrative bodies, and the heavy compliance obligations imposed by the Proposal entail certain risks in terms of freedom of expression, legal foreseeability, and competitive balance. In particular, the cost burden on small and local platforms, the potential impact of the licensing regime for news content on access to information, and interventions in the field of artificial intelligence necessitate careful implementation of the regulation. Within this framework, the success of the Proposal will depend on the adoption of secondary legislation that is clear, proportionate, and compatible with fundamental rights, as well as on the effective, transparent, and reviewable operation of balancing safeguards in practice.
Efe Kınıkoğlu, Sr. Partner
Ebrar Turan, Associate