Proposal on the Amendment of the the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works

1.     General Framework and Purpose

The Proposal (“the Proposal”) on the Amendment of the Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“the Law”), dated on April 8, 2026, aims to adapt the Law to the requirements of the digital age and artificial intelligence technologies.

Despite the amendments most recently enacted in 2021, it is certain that the Law remains unable to meet the continuous and cross-border needs regarding the protection of works produced in digital environments and the rights related thereto. In particular, it has been identified that the Law is insufficient in providing the necessary legal protections for works used in the development of artificial intelligence models. As a result of these factors, it is emphasized that an uncompensated transfer of value is occurring from creative sectors based on human labour toward large technology actors.

The Proposal aims to protect the economic interests of rightsholders in the digital world while eliminating heavy transaction costs and legal uncertainty for users. In addition to the already existing licensing mechanisms, an extended collective licensing system has been introduced for digital usage areas, and the establishment of a joint licensing union specific to artificial intelligence has been proposed.

2.     What Does the Proposal Include?

a.     Extended collective licensing

The Proposal introduces a variety of new definitions such as “artificial intelligence system”, “extended collective licensing”, “joint licensing union”, “out-of-commerce work”, and “cultural heritage institution” into the Law. Specifically, for the licensing of works where obtaining individual permissions from rightsholders is excessively burdensome or where high-volume usage involving numerous rightsholders is required; collective licensing may be conducted by a collecting society with high representative capacity—such as the Musical Work Owners’ Society of Turkey—or by joint licensing unions.

In addition to the power of licensing, the aforementioned unions are obligated to treat member and non-member rightsholders equally; to publicly announce tariffs, licensing terms, and distribution principles; to inform rightsholders and users about the operation of the system through appropriate means; to distribute collected fees according to transparent and auditable criteria, and to publish an annual transparency report.

b.     Collective Rights Management Regarding Artificial Intelligence

Under the Proposal, a mandatory licensing requirement subject to a fee, is introduced for activities such as data mining, reproduction, processing, parsing, and storage carried out during the training process of artificial intelligence models. While the licensing obligation during the training and development phase of the AI rests with the service providers, natural and legal persons who use the generated outputs for commercial or professional purposes as a substitute for works based on human labour are held responsible for output licensing. Furthermore, based on the “one-stop shop” principle, the Proposal allows for licenses to be obtained through a single contract executed with the authorized collecting society or joint licensing union.

On the other hand, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism (“Ministry”) is obligated to establish a “public database” to be used in the implementation of the system prepared by the authorized collecting society or joint licensing unions, covering aspects such as the scope, repertoire, tariffs, licensing terms, and distribution principles of the system.

c.      Transition Process and Implementation Timeline

The entry into force of the implementing regulations and the establishment of the joint licensing union specific to artificial intelligence have been made mandatory within six months of the amendment's effective date. It is intended that the public database to be created by the Ministry shall become operational and open for use no later than one year. Furthermore, to prevent any regulatory vacuum, authorized unions are required to publish their first tariff announcements within three months following the entry into force of the regulation.

3.     Our Opinions & Suggestions

We concur with the Proposal’s assessment that traditional licensing mechanisms remain insufficient to meet the current needs of rightsholders. Especially with the rapid pace of digitalization and the increasing unpredictable impacts of artificial intelligence technologies, it is evident that the current system creates significant transaction costs and implementation challenges in the face of large-scale and cross-border usage of works. In this framework, the adoption of the extended collective licensing model and the “one-stop shop” approach within the scope of the Law can be evaluated as a practical step toward simplifying licensing processes and protecting the economic interests of rightsholders.

However, certain fundamental assumptions and mechanisms introduced by the Proposal remain open to debate from various perspectives. Primarily, the assumption that all artificial intelligence models generate the same economic impact is contentious. Despite significant differences between open-source models and large-scale commercial systems, the Proposal adopts a generalized approach and does not sufficiently account for this distinction.

While the Proposal’s objective of reducing transaction costs through a “one-stop shop” system is theoretically sound, it also bears the potential to create adverse effects in practice. Indeed, global AI developers—such as OpenAI, Google, and Meta—may opt to shift their operations to different jurisdictions or limit access to Turkey-based content, rather than complying with a local joint licensing system. Such a scenario could negatively impact the global circulation of digital content from Turkey, rather than providing the intended economic protection.

Furthermore, the regulation subjecting the commercial use of AI outputs to licensing does not fully align with current legal theory. In many legal systems, the subject of whether AI outputs that lack the element of human creativity qualify as a work remains a highly controversial. Consequently, it is assessed that the approach toward output licensing could lead to significant legal uncertainties in practice and reduce predictability for users.

Although the extended collective licensing model aims to streamline licensing processes, its adoption creates a separate area of debate. In Denmark, the playback of music in commercial establishments such as restaurants and shops is contingent upon obtaining a license from non-profit organizations like Koda and Gramex.[1] Similarly, Sweden’s largest copyright organization, STIM, is developing specific licensing models for AI companies—a new approach to protecting rightsholders when AI models are trained on music or other copyrighted works. However, delegating significant authority to collecting societies and joint licensing unions, as seen in the Danish and Swedish examples, carries the risk of market centralization and the weakening of competition. Moreover, including non-member rightsholders within the scope of the system remains open to criticism regarding property rights and the issue of representation.

In conclusion, the Proposal addresses real issues emerging from the digital age and presents significant objectives for the protection of rightsholders. However, more detailed assessment is required regarding the feasibility of the proposed solution mechanisms and their potential impacts on the market. While the Proposal is a significant initiative aimed at establishing a balance within the digital ecosystem, it undoubtedly contains aspects that must be carefully reconsidered, particularly regarding the behaviour of global actors and compatibility with existing legal norms. Ultimately, we assess that the Law continues to require amendments that are more liberal, flexible, and agile in adapting to digital advancements.