This is the most widely misunderstood subject in the series. The assumption common in the field is this: "I wrote the source, so there is no problem." The structure the statute builds is exactly the opposite. Crediting the source is an additional obligation to be discharged in the cases where quotation is already free. It does not make a use that is not free become free. Below I establish that distinction through the provisions themselves, show where the two obligations intersect, and set out which infringements survive even when the source has been credited.
The statute says two separate things
In the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 ("FSEK"), permission and attribution are two independent layers. The first determines to whom the economic rights belong; the second determines the form to be observed in cases of free use. When you conflate them, you may commit an infringement of economic rights even though you have credited the source.
| Layer | What it governs | Basis | Consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Economic rights / permission | To whom the power to adapt, reproduce, distribute, perform and communicate the work to the public belongs | FSEK Articles 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25; Articles 48-52 for transfer | On infringement: the claim under Article 68(1), cessation under Article 66, damages under Article 70, the criminal penalty under Article 71(1)(1) |
| Crediting the source | How the source is to be stated in cases of free use | FSEK Article 35 final paragraph, Article 36(3), Article 33, Article 34 final paragraph | On infringement: Article 67(3) (insertion of the author's name + publication of the judgment) and the penalties in Articles 71(1)(3) and 71(1)(5) |
Note carefully: the sanctions attaching to the two rows are separate as well. Crediting the source discharges the obligation in the second row; it does not solve the problem in the first.
Where does the duty to credit come from?
The statute does not treat crediting the source as an independent source of authority, but as a condition of the freedom. The two core provisions read as follows:
FSEK Article 35 — final paragraph
"The quotation must be made in a manner that is apparent. In scientific
works, in addition to the name of the work used and of its author, the place
from which the passage was taken shall be stated."
FSEK Article 36 — third paragraph
"In all these cases it is necessary to state the name of the newspaper,
periodical or news agency quoted and, where these in turn have taken the
material from another source, the name of that source, together with the
date and issue number, and in addition the name, pen name or sign of the
authors of the articles."
(Unofficial translations; the Turkish text is authoritative.)Note two expressions. Article 35 says the quotation "must" be made in that manner, and Article 36(3) says it "is necessary" to state those elements. Both are mandatory — they express an obligation, not a choice. But look at how both sentences are constructed: each of them tells you how a quotation that is already permissible is to be made. Neither of them says "you may take it if you credit the source".
So what happens where the use is not free?
If the content you are using does not fall within Article 36, Article 37 or any of the other exemptions, the economic rights in that content belong exclusively to the author. The wording of the statute is categorical:
- Article 21: "The right to exploit a work by adapting it belongs exclusively to the author."
- Article 22: the right to reproduce the original or copies of a work "in any form or by any method, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, temporarily or permanently" belongs exclusively to the author
- Article 23: the right of distribution belongs exclusively to the author
- Article 25: the right of communication to the public by devices serving the transmission of signs, sound and/or images, including digital transmission, and the right of communication to the public "by making the work accessible to natural persons at a place and time individually chosen by them", belong exclusively to the author
Putting content on a news website is precisely what the phrase "access at a place and time individually chosen" in Article 25(2) describes. If that right belongs to the author, writing a source credit does not transfer it to you. For the right to pass, a transfer or licence under Articles 48-52 is required, and Article 52 also prescribes its form:
FSEK Article 52 — Form
"Contracts and dispositions relating to economic rights must be in writing,
and the rights forming their subject matter must be specified individually."
(Unofficial translation.)Infringements that survive even where the source has been credited
Let us make this concrete. In an unauthorised use, crediting the source removes only one infringement; it does not remove the others.
| Claim / sanction | Basis | Does crediting the source change the position? |
|---|---|---|
| Up to three times the current market value | FSEK Article 68(1) | No. The claim attaches to the unauthorised use, not to the credit |
| Action for the cessation of the infringement | FSEK Article 66 | No. And under Article 66(3), fault on the part of the infringer is not required |
| Action for the prevention of the infringement | FSEK Article 69 | No |
| Pecuniary damages | FSEK Article 70(2) | No; may be claimed where there is fault |
| Penalty for unauthorised communication to the public / publication (1-5 years' imprisonment or a judicial fine) | FSEK Article 71(1)(1) | No. This subparagraph does not look at whether the source was credited |
| Penalty for quoting without crediting the source (6 months - 2 years) | FSEK Article 71(1)(3) | Yes; as regards this subparagraph the offence is not made out |
| Insertion of the author's name on the copies + publication of the judgment in up to 3 newspapers | FSEK Article 67(3) -> Article 67(2) | Yes; where the source has been credited correctly and sufficiently, this claim does not arise |
| Article 24(1) of the Press Law: republication without crediting the source | Press Law No. 5187, Article 24(1) | Yes; as regards this paragraph the offence is not made out |
| Article 24(2) of the Press Law: republication without permission | Press Law No. 5187, Article 24(2) | No. This paragraph turns on permission, not on the credit |
What the table shows is simple: crediting the source satisfies the duty to credit the source. It satisfies nothing else. We deal in detail with the criminal dimension of the two regimes and how they can be applied together in our article on the penalty for republishing without credit.
The converse also holds: I have permission, so may I omit the credit?
That will not do either, but for a different reason. Crediting the source is connected not only with economic rights but also with moral rights. FSEK Article 67 governs infringement of moral rights, and its third paragraph goes directly to the question of attribution:
FSEK Article 67 — second and third paragraphs
Para. 2: "Where the author's name has not been placed on the work at all, or
has been placed incorrectly, or where the name placed is of such a nature as
to cause confusion, and the author has claimed the cessation of the
infringement in addition to the action for a declaration referred to in
Article 15, the infringer is obliged to insert the author's name both on the
original and on the reproduced copies in circulation. Publication of the
judgment in up to 3 newspapers may be claimed, at the infringer's expense."
Para. 3: "In the cases enumerated in Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 39 and 40,
where the source has been stated incorrectly or insufficiently, or has not
been stated at all, the provision of the second paragraph applies."
(Unofficial translation.)The paragraph enumerates three possibilities together: an incorrect source, an insufficient source, and no source at all. The consequence of all three is the same — insertion of the author's name on the copies and, at the infringer's expense, publication of the judgment in up to three newspapers. In other words, an incomplete credit is tied to the same sanction as no credit at all.
The criminal dimension: two separate subparagraphs, two separate acts
FSEK Article 71 draws the distinction between crediting and permission at the level of criminal law too. The two subparagraphs are independent of each other:
- Article 71(1)(1): a person who adapts, performs, reproduces, alters, distributes, communicates to the public or publishes a work without the written permission of the rightholder is sentenced to imprisonment from one to five years or a judicial fine
- Article 71(1)(3): a person who quotes from a work without crediting the source is punished by imprisonment from six months to two years or a judicial fine
- Article 71(1)(5): a person who credits the source of a work in an insufficient, incorrect or misleading manner is punished by imprisonment of up to six months
The first subparagraph speaks of "written permission", the third of the "source". A person who uses a work without permission but credits the source escapes the third subparagraph; he does not escape the first. Under FSEK Article 75(1), the investigation and prosecution of the offences in Articles 71 and 72 depend on a complaint, and the documents proving ownership of the rights must be submitted to the public prosecutor's office together with the complaint.
In which cases, then, is crediting the source enough?
The cases in which it is enough are enumerated in the statute, and every one of them is a case of free use. The ones that arise most often in news and media are these:
| Case | Source of the freedom | Attribution obligation |
|---|---|---|
| Daily news and reports disseminated by the press or radio | FSEK Article 36(1) | The Article 36(3) elements |
| Articles and columns whose right of quotation has not been reserved | FSEK Article 36(2), first sentence | The Article 36(3) elements |
| A press summary of articles and columns whose right of quotation has been reserved | FSEK Article 36(2), second sentence | The Article 36(3) elements |
| Speeches in parliament, in court and at public meetings | FSEK Article 32 | As a rule the name is stated; Article 32(2) allows an exception where the nature of the event does not require it |
| Officially published statutes, decrees, regulations, communiqués, circulars and judicial decisions | FSEK Article 31 | The text of the article imposes no separate condition; the freedom is complete |
| Works of fine art permanently placed on public roads, streets and squares | FSEK Article 40(1) | In the case of works of architecture it is confined to the external form |
For every use falling outside this table, the question of permission arises. You can find the scope of the free cases and the decision flow in our article on the freedom to quote news, and the twofold regime specific to opinion columns in our article on quoting opinion columns.
Three rules for the newsroom
- Establish the freedom first, then write the credit. If the order is reversed, the source line merely becomes the record of the infringement — you will have documented for yourself which content you took and where you took it from.
- If you are obtaining permission, obtain it in writing and enumerate the rights one by one. Article 52 requires this; Article 20(1) says that economic rights are not dependent on one another. The sentence "you may publish it on the site" does not cover permission to adapt or to keep it in an archive.
- Write the credit in full. Article 67(3) ties an insufficient credit to the same sanction as no credit at all, and Article 71(1)(5) penalises it separately. We give the complete list of elements and the templates in our article on crediting sources.
You can find how the heads of claim available once an infringement has occurred are calculated in our article on calculating damages for copyright infringement. On the institutional side, keeping permission records and source credits inside the content workflow is decisive when it comes to proving matters later; on the news publishing software side, the licence record and the source field can be attached to the same content record.