The Proposed Amendments to Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works

The acceleration of digitalization, the widespread adoption of internet-based uses, and the increasing interaction between artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and copyright-protected content necessitate greater legal certainty regarding the position of rights holders and the development of mechanisms enabling them to effectively exercise their rights. To address this need, the The Proposal Amending the Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works ("Proposal") was prepared and submitted to the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye (“GNAT”) on April 8, 2026. The Proposal is currently under examination by the relevant committee as of July 2026, under file number 2/3634.

The general justification of the Proposal states that Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“LIAW”) was originally shaped in response to the needs of the analogue era and, although it has undergone various amendments over the years, it has not been fully adapted to the needs arising from the digital economy and internet-based use models. Accordingly, the Proposal seeks to establish an extended collective licensing (“ECL”) system for digital uses and, in relation to AI-related uses, a dedicated collective rights management and licensing model to be operated through a joint licensing union.

The key amendments envisaged under the Proposal can be summarized as follows:​Establishment of an ECL System

Pursuant to Article 42/C proposed to be introduced into the LIAW, the Proposal introduces an ECL system for certain types of uses in digital environments where a large number of works and subject matter protected by related rights are used simultaneously or extensively. In particular, an ECL mechanism is envisaged for the digitization and provision of controlled access to out-of-commerce content by cultural heritage institutions, as well as for other circumstances where obtaining individual permissions from each right holder is impracticable or would constitute a disproportionate burden. Accordingly, collective management organizations (“CMOs”) authorized by the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and having sufficient representativeness, or a joint licensing union established by CMOs for the purpose of carrying out single-point licensing, collection and distribution of remuneration in specific categories of rights, may grant licenses not only on behalf of their members but also, limited to the relevant uses, on behalf of non-member right holders who have not opted out of the system. Right holders are granted the possibility to opt out of the system through written notification, and such request shall take effect thirty days following the submission of the notification. The authorized entities will also be required to disclose the licensing terms to the public, distribute the revenues generated in accordance with specific and auditable criteria, and provide regular reporting, acting in line with the principles of transparency, equal treatment and accountability.

Input and Output Licensing Model for AI Uses

Pursuant to Article 42/D proposed to be added to the LIAW, the Proposal establishes a two-way licensing mechanism concerning the use of content used in the development processes of AI systems and, under certain conditions, the use of outputs generated by such systems.

Firstly, it is proposed that works, performances, phonograms, productions and broadcasts may be licensed for equitable remuneration for purposes including the training, fine-tuning, developing, testing, creating datasets for, improving models of, or carrying out similar activities in relation to AI systems made available for use in Türkiye. The obligation to obtain such licenses shall rest with the providers of AI systems.

Secondly, the commercial or professional use of outputs generated by AI systems, where such outputs directly or indirectly substitute for works, performances, phonograms, productions or broadcasts, benefit from their economic value, or compete with them, shall be subject to licensing against equitable remuneration. Such licenses shall be obtained by the natural or legal persons making commercial or professional use of the relevant outputs.

For both licensing models, right management will be carried out through a joint licensing union to be established with the participation of CMOs operating in the relevant rights fields and the joint licensing union will also be authorized to represent non-member right holders who have not opted out of the system, limited to the relevant uses. Right holders will be entitled to opt out of the system through written notification, in which case they may pursue their rights individually. Furthermore, the system enables the representation of foreign right holders’ rights by the joint licensing union based on reciprocity.

Common Provisions: The One-Stop Office Principle and Transparency Obligations

The Proposal adopts “one-stop office” principle regarding licensing activities within the scope of articles 42/C and 42/D explained above. Accordingly, users will be able to obtain licenses by entering into a single agreement with the authorized CMO or the joint licensing union. Furthermore, it is proposed that objective criteria relating to the nature of the use shall be taken into account in determining licensing tariffs, that such tariffs shall be made publicly available, that right holders and users shall be regularly informed through an electronic database to be established by the Ministry, that all relevant processes shall be conducted in a transparent manner, and that the collected remuneration shall be distributed based on transparent and auditable criteria. In addition to that, by referring to the existing procedures set forth under Articles 41 and 43 of the LIAW regarding the negotiation, objection and judicial review processes for license tariffs, as applicable the Proposal aims to ensure the procedural integration of the new licensing system with the existing collective rights management mechanisms.

The Proposal is particularly significant in that it introduces an explicit licensing model under Turkish copyright law in response to the long-standing debates concerning the use of copyright-protected content in the training of AI systems. Nevertheless, uncertainties remain as to how the proposed extended licensing and joint licensing mechanisms will be reconciled with the existing framework of the LIAW. In particular, while participation in CMO under the current system is primarily based on the will of the right holder, the adoption of an ECL model based on an opt-out mechanism under the Proposal indicates a significant shift in the existing system. Accordingly, further consideration is required as to how this model, which proposes the representation of non-member right holders within the joint licensing mechanism under certain conditions, will be aligned with the current structure of the LIAW and to what extent it will prove effective in practice.

Furthermore, the input licensing approach introduced for the development of AI systems resembles licensing models that have increasingly been discussed at the international level. On the other hand, although the Proposal limits the scope of licensing to outputs that directly or indirectly substitute for works, performances, phonograms, productions or broadcasts, derive economic benefit from them, or compete with them, it remains unclear which criteria will be applied in assessing these concepts in practice. Determining which types of uses will be considered as “substitution”, “deriving economic benefit” or “competition” is crucial for ensuring the predictability of the scope of the licensing obligation. Otherwise, significant uncertainties may arise in practice regarding the scope of the licensing obligation for individuals and entities using AI tools for commercial or professional purposes. Therefore, setting out clearer criteria for the application of these concepts either in the LIAW itself or through secondary legislation would contribute both to the protection of right holders and to ensuring legal certainty for users.

Although the Proposal aims to address several long-standing issues in copyright law, it should be noted that, due to the comprehensive nature of the amendments it introduces, it may become subject to significant discussions during the legislative process and may undergo further revisions before its adoption. Therefore, the final content of the Proposal and its potential implications for Turkish copyright law will become clearer depending on the outcome of the committee’s review and legislative process before the GNAT.