Source: https://www.suluk.com.tr/en/kararlar-category/copyright/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 12:47:59+00:00

Document:
The case is about the penalty clause and compensation requests without relying on any rights protected by Copyright Code, on the subject of unjust termination of the contract signed by the parties on 26.06.2006 with regard to the broadcasting of a talk show program and/or the performance of a TV host.
It is clear that the duly signed contract between the parties is a “copyright work agreement” and the claims for compensation made according to that agreement. In this regard, the defendant is not the owner of a “work” within the meaning of Copyright Code and the case don’t rely on an “intellectual property right or ownership of a right” and therefore the plaintiff cannot demand protection under Copyright Code. For these reasons, the case is not in the jurisdiction of IP Courts and dispute must be resolved by Commercial Courts with reference to Art. 355 and further provisions of Turkish Law of Obligations.
Mardin Decision Regarding the Determination of Artistic Work Character of A Photograph with the Help of Legal Experts: The examination of a photographic work regarding its artistic value requires technical and special knowledge and therefore needs to be carried out by an expert who is well experienced in the Art of Photography. In this case, the mentioned examination was not performed by such an expert therefore the cassation demands of the defendant has been accepted.
According to the 1995’s amendment made on Law No. 5846 on Copyright Code, some economical rights have been granted to performers regarding their ownership of related rights. Even though there is time constraints with regard to the ownership of cinematographic works, the rights of the performers remain retroactively unlimited. Thus, performers do have financial rights of their performances in movies produced or started to be produced before 12.6.1995.
According to Turkish Copyright Code foreign collecting societies that represent the transmission rights of its members’ cinematographic works not allowed to open a lawsuit with regard to the re-transmission rights against the cable platform operators. The case filed by Association de Gestion Internationale Collective Des Oevres Audiovisuelles (AGICOA) as a foreign society against Türk Telekomünikasyon A. Ş. (TURKSAT A.Ş.) was dismissed in accordance. This decision is also in line with Bern Convention article 5 in which the extent of protection, as well as the means of redress afforded to the author to protect his copyrights, are left to be governed exclusively by the laws of the country where protection is claimed.
In the publication agreement between the testator of the defendants and the publisher, the statement of “every kind of publication rights” has been used.
It is clearly understood that the defendant published many editions of the books subject to issue and put them on the market under the mentioned publishing agreement which grants defendant to exercise rights of reproduction and publication. In fact, it is a necessity to state number of the editions in the publishing agreements. Otherwise, according to Art. 375 of Turkish Law of Obligations, it is deemed that rights granted with publishing agreement are only limited with one edition of the books.
In such publishing agreement, according to Art. 52 of Turkish Copyright Code requiring written form to amend deeds, plaintiff’s silence does not be deemed as his giving permission to other editions and amending the contract.
According to the art. 48 of Turkish Copyright Code the author, on the one hand, may transfer to others the economic rights, unrestricted or restricted as regards duration, place or scope, with or without consideration (transfer), on the other hand the author may grant the authority only to exercise the economic rights to another person. According to the art.50 of the same Code, commitments regarding the acts of disposal mentioned in arts.48 and 49 shall also be valid, if they have been made before the creation of work. Again it is stated in art.52 of the Code contracts and disposals concerning economic rights shall be in writing and the rights constituting their subject matter shall be specified individually.
In the contract in dispute, it is agreed upon that the work created by the plaintiff is “a photo shoot for a promotional catalogue regarding the vehicles Fiat Albea/Palio/Palio Spor/Yardım.” Within the context, it is comprehended that the area of utilization of the transferred exclusive rights (reproduction and distribution rights) is restricted with the promotional brochure, which is printed by the defendant. The fact that the word “brochure” is used in the contract indicates that the brochure is made for promotional reasons. This wording excludes the utilization of the related photos with a purpose of commercially marketing on billboards, with newspaper and magazine advertisements or via Internet.
As this restriction is valid and legitimate according to the art.48 of the Turkish Copyright Code and the defendant has used the photos, without the written authorization of the plaintiff and without the name and title of the plaintiff on billboards, newspapers, magazines and web sites, it is obvious that the reproduction and distribution rights, which are granted by art.22 and art.23 of Turkish Copyright Code are violated according to the art.68 of the same Code.
The partial (2 min 6 sec) use of an audio track named “Akl-ü Hikmet” as a background music in one of the prime news on defendant’s TV channel named “Show TV” considered as a violation of author’s rights. According to the agreement signed between MESAM (collecting society) and defendant with regard to the permission of the broadcasting of audio tracks (musical works) the defendant, except its legal usage, not allowed to broadcast the musical work as a subordinate element in other commercial programs or products. The use of musical works as generic or jingle is deemed to be synchronization of musical work which is considered as a type of derivative work and not covered in the agreement. Anyone who wishes to use the musical work as described above should ask the permission from the author or his/her music publisher that is in charge of defending legal rights.
If any modification or derivation was made on an original work without the authorization of its owner, then the owner of the derivative work could not claim any right against its genuine owner. However the owner of the derivative work could still claim the rights arise from his/her derivative work against 3rd parties. Whether the derivation was made by authorization or not, is a matter between the owner of the derivation and the owner of the original work.
The building subject to the court case is in the form of a fine art work. As the subject matter is a hotel building, it is the burden of the proprietor to take the necessary action as to the security and solidity of the building as well as to the re-construction work. Otherwise it will become impossible to respond and adapt to the changing needs of the structure in terms of comfort and service. The main concern during renovation should be not to destroy the overall appearance of the construction. The Court has agreed with the expert report and overruled the claim of the plaintiff on the grounds that renovation is necessary and it neither damaged integrity of the building nor the author’s reputation.

References: Art. 355
 Art. 375
 Art. 52
 art. 48
 art.50
 art.52
 art.48
 art.22
 art.23
 art.68