Hidden camera work is defended as a legitimate journalistic method, but Turkish law contains no provision making it generally lawful. The measure of the risk is whether the place filmed and the subject fall within the sphere of private life.
The central provision: Article 134
| Para. | Act | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| Art. 134/1 | Infringing the privacy of the private life of persons | 1–3 years’ imprisonment |
| Art. 134/1 (2nd sentence) | Where the infringement occurs by recording images or sounds | The sentence is doubled |
| Art. 134/2 | Unlawfully disclosing images or sounds relating to the private life of persons | 2–5 years’ imprisonment |
| Art. 134/2 (2nd sentence) | “Where such disclosed data are published through the press and media, the same penalty shall be imposed.” | 2–5 years’ imprisonment |
The audio side: Article 133
A hidden camera usually records sound as well, which engages a separate provision. Under Article 133/1, listening with a device to, or recording with an audio recording device, non-public conversations between persons without the consent of one of the parties attracts two to five years’ imprisonment. Recording a conversation in which the reporter takes part is separately regulated in Article 133/2.
The decisive test: is it the sphere of private life?
The Law does not define “private life”. In practice what matters is whether the person had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that setting.
| Lower risk | Higher risk |
|---|---|
| General footage in a public square | The inside of a home, a garden, a balcony |
| A press conference, a rally, an open event | A hospital room, a consulting room |
| A public official performing their duty in public | Non-public parts of a workplace, an internal meeting |
| Content the person has themselves made public | A hotel room, a changing area, a toilet |
How far does public interest go?
Article 24/2 of the Civil Code justifies an attack on personality rights on one of three grounds: consent, a superior private or public interest, or the exercise of a power conferred by law. That is a strong defence in private law.
In criminal law, however, Article 134 operates independently and its text contains no public interest exception. In practice public interest may be taken into account in the assessment of unlawfulness, but it is not a shield to be relied on in advance.
Proportionality: narrow the scope
- Publish only the part that establishes the public interest, not the whole recording.
- Render third parties in the footage unrecognisable.
- Remove parts falling within private life — family, health, the inside of a home.
- Obtain the person’s response and include it in the story.
- Confine the filming to the subject; do not create the impression of general surveillance.
Admissibility as evidence is a separate question
Whether covert footage is admitted as evidence in proceedings does not determine whether publishing it was lawful. The two assessments are made in different branches of law and by different tests.
Damages
Civil liability can arise independently of criminal liability. Under Article 13 of Law No. 5187 the author of the work together with the owner of the publication and their representative, if any, are jointly and severally liable for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising from acts committed through printed works or online news sites. Under Article 58 of Law No. 6098 a person whose personality right is injured may claim non-pecuniary damages.
Audio recording rules are covered in the audio recording guide and filming in public in the public places guide.