Before starting on the answer to this question, let us make the most important finding: the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 ("FSEK") contains no provision whatsoever on artificial intelligence. There is no article in the text of the statute regulating the concepts of "artificial intelligence", "algorithm" or automated generation in that sense; every place where the word "computer" appears is solely in the context of computer programs, interfaces and interoperability. Whether the output of an artificial intelligence system counts as a work, who would hold rights over that output, and the use of works in training artificial intelligence - none of these is regulated in the statute.
The ground of the debate: what the statute actually contains
The artificial intelligence debate runs through three general provisions of the statute. They make no reference to artificial intelligence; but through the answers they give to the questions "what is a work" and "who is the author", they set the frame of the debate.
FSEK Article 1/B - definition of a work and of an author
Article 1/B - (Added: 21/2/2001 - 4630/2)
Of the definitions used in this Law;
a) Work: any intellectual and artistic product bearing the
characteristic of its author and regarded as a work of science and
literature, music, fine arts or cinema,
b) Author: the (...) person who creates the work,
...shall mean the above.
[Footnote] By Article 28 of Law No. 5101 of 3/3/2004, the word
"natural" was removed from the text of this sub-paragraph.What the text of the statute says amounts to this: to be a work, a product must both "bear the characteristic of its author" and fall within one of the four categories listed in the statute; and the author is "the person who creates the work". In 2004, by Article 28 of Law No. 5101, the word "natural" was removed from that sub-paragraph. There is no explanation in the text beyond this.
FSEK Article 8 - who the author is
Article 8 - (Amended: 21/2/2001 - 4630/5)
The author of a work is the person who creates it.
The author of an adaptation or a compilation is the person who adapts
it, without prejudice to the rights of the author of the original
work.
In cinematographic works, the director, the composer of the original
music, the screenwriter and the dialogue writer are joint authors of
the work. In cinematographic works made with animation techniques, the
animator is also among the joint authors of the work.Article 8 ties authorship to the act of "creating". Article 1/B(a), for its part, sets the condition of being a work as "bearing the characteristic of its author". In other words, the statute defines a work by reference to an author and that author's characteristic. Beyond this the statute contains no rule on the output of an artificial intelligence system.
FSEK Article 13 - the rights of the author, in general
Article 13(1): "The economic and moral interests of the authors of intellectual and artistic works are protected within the framework of this Law." Paragraph 2: "The rights and powers conferred on the author extend to the whole of the work and to its parts." Protection is thus tied to the existence of a work and an author. Where those conditions can be established, the section on economic rights comes into play: adaptation (Article 21), reproduction (Article 22), distribution (Article 23), performance (Article 24) and communication to the public by means serving the transmission of signs, sounds and/or images (Article 25). Article 20(1) further provides that these rights are not dependent on one another and that dealing with one does not affect the others.
The practical consequence of the subject not being regulated
The fact that a subject is not regulated in the statute does not mean that it is "free"; it means that it is "uncertain". Uncertainty means risk for a publisher, because when a dispute arises there is no specific provision for either you or the other side to rely on. Three practical consequences follow:
- You cannot claim that an exclusive right has arisen in your favour over an image generated with artificial intelligence; this subject is not regulated in the statute.
- Equally, nobody guarantees that the generated image does not infringe the rights of third parties; when an infringement claim arrives, the burden of defending it falls on you.
- The source of your right of use is not the statute but the terms of use of the tool you used - so it turns into a contract question. That is structurally the same as the licensing question on free image sites.
What do the tool's terms of use give you?
The terms of use of generative image tools differ from one another and change over time. Read the contract before you use the tool, record its version and keep a copy of the text. These are the headings to look for:
| Question to ask | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Which rights are granted over the output? | Whether the contract gives you ownership, or only authority to use |
| Is commercial use expressly permitted? | A news site counts as commercial use |
| Is there a difference between paid and free plans? | On free plans commercial use is often restricted |
| Does the provider give an indemnity? | Who will be responsible if a third party asserts a right |
| Does it say the output may be given to others as well? | The possibility of the same image appearing in a competing publication |
| Is generating images of real people prohibited? | If you breach the prohibition you are also acting contrary to the contract |
| Is a disclosure (labelling) obligation imposed? | It may also arise as a contractual obligation |
| What is the version and date of the terms? | Which text applies in a dispute |
Third-party rights arising from training data
How generative models are trained, and the legal status of the works used in that training, are not regulated in Turkish legislation. FSEK contains no exception provision for text and data mining. That does not in itself create a direct obligation for you; but if the output plainly resembles someone else's work, you may face claims based on Article 21 (adaptation) and Article 22 (reproduction). In such a claim, fault is not required under FSEK Article 66(3), and under Article 66(2), if the act was committed by your employee, proceedings may also be brought against the publisher as the owner of the business.
Outputs resembling a real person: FSEK Article 86
If a generated image resembles a real person, the discussion shifts from copyright to personality rights. The rule in FSEK Article 86(1) takes no account of how the picture was produced:
Article 86 - Even if they do not qualify as works, pictures and
portraits may not be exhibited or communicated to the public in any
other manner without the consent of the person depicted, or - if that
person has died - of those listed in the first paragraph of Article 19,
until 10 years have passed since the death of the person depicted.
Obtaining the consent referred to in the first paragraph is not
required for:
1. pictures of persons who play a role in the political and social
life of the country;
2. pictures showing parades or official ceremonies or general
assemblies in which the persons depicted took part;
3. pictures relating to daily events, and radio and film news.
(Third paragraph as amended: 23/1/2008-5728/145) In respect of those
who act contrary to the first paragraph, Article 49 of the Code of
Obligations and, where the conditions are met, Articles 134, 139 and
140 of the Turkish Penal Code shall apply.
(Fourth paragraph as amended: 23/1/2008-5728/145) Even in the cases
where publication is permitted under the first and second paragraphs,
Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code is reserved.The critical point here is this: the three exceptions in Article 86(2) are tied to an event that actually happened. The phrase "pictures relating to daily events" presupposes that the event really took place and that the picture relates to it. An image generated with artificial intelligence showing a scene that never happened does not sit within that definition. The public figure exception, too, concerns the use of a real image of a person; a generated image showing that person doing something they did not in fact do raises a separate legal question. We examine the criminal dimension of this field separately in our article on the consequences of publishing deepfake content.
Editorial disclosure: a legal obligation, or professional ethics?
This distinction has to be drawn clearly, because in practice it is often confused.
- As a matter of FSEK: an obligation to tell the reader that an image was generated with artificial intelligence is not regulated in the statute. There is no such provision in FSEK.
- As a matter of ethics and editorial practice: stating whether an image shown to the reader is a real record or a generated depiction is a basic requirement of the accuracy of the story. That is not a matter of statute but of publishing policy and professional honesty.
- As a matter of contract: if the terms of the tool you use impose a disclosure obligation, that is a binding contractual obligation for you.
- Indirect legal risk: a generated image being taken for a real one may give rise to an argument about publishing something contrary to the truth. In that situation you may face a right of reply and correction request; we covered how that process works in our article on the reply and correction text.
Image labelling and record template
LABEL SHOWN TO THE READER (under the image, in legible type)
"This image was generated with artificial intelligence.
It is not a real photograph. Tool used: [tool name]."
For illustrative use:
"Illustrative image - generated with artificial intelligence."
NEWSROOM RECORD (not published)
Story : ..............................
Image file : ..............................
Tool and version : ..............................
Terms of use version/date: ...........................
Text of the terms stored? yes / no
Commercial use permitted? yes / no
Prompt text : ..............................
Date/time of generation: ....../....../...... ........
Generated by : ..............................
Reverse image search carried out? yes / no
Resemblance to a known work detected? yes / no
Resemblance to a real person? yes / no
-> if yes, assessment under Art. 86: ...............
Reader label added? yes / no
Approving editor : ..............................Pre-publication checklist
[ ] The tool's terms of use read, version recorded, text stored
[ ] Permission for commercial use expressly confirmed
[ ] Prompt text recorded
[ ] Reverse image search carried out; no resemblance to a known work
[ ] Contains no brand, logo or recognisable work of architecture
[ ] Does not resemble a real person (if it does, it is not used)
[ ] The image does not present an event that never happened as real
[ ] "Generated with artificial intelligence" label for the reader
added
[ ] Label positioned so that it cannot be separated from the image
(visible in social media sharing as well)
[ ] Archive record for the image created
[ ] Generated images are not used in crime, health, child and victim
stories - written down as institutional policy
[ ] Approval of the responsible editor obtainedA recommendation for your publishing policy
Because there is no regulation in the statute, you have to fill the gap with your own publishing policy. Put at least these three rules in writing: (1) in which types of story a generated image may be used, and in which it absolutely may not; (2) what the text and position of the label will be; (3) who will keep the generation record (tool, version, prompt, date) and where. You can see how that policy fits together with the obligations of an online news site in our legal compliance checklist.
On the technical side, this information has to be stored permanently together with the image. The KEYDAL news publishing software lets you define "generation tool", "prompt", "licence" and "reader label" fields on media records and stop an image from going live while those fields are empty.