General
With the release of ChatGPT to the general public in 2022, the use of artificial intelligence, which is increasingly impacting daily life, has also extended to the professional and academic spheres. Following the shift toward generative AI, there has arisen a need to legally regulate the use of artificial intelligence and the consequences of such use. Indeed, considering how rapidly the use of artificial intelligence, similar to the internet, has grown, it is easy to see that the works and outputs it generates within the next five years could possess significant economic and commercial value, if not possessing already, and consequently, could become the subject of legal disputes involving copyright and claims for material and immaterial compensation.
Although generative artificial intelligence has integrated into daily life at a rapid pace, many countries have refrained from enacting legal regulations either in favor of or against AI, and the legal assessments conducted in this context have merely outlined a descriptive framework. Legal developments such as the “Interim Measures for the Management of Generative Artificial Intelligence Services,” which came into effect in the People’s Republic of China in 2023, and the “AI Guidelines” published for the business sector in Japan in 2024 have not provided sufficient legal clarity regarding the evolving and expanding scope of AI.
With the “EU AI Act,” which entered into force on August 1, 2024, general provisions regarding artificial intelligence and bans on AI systems posing unacceptable risks have taken effect, The rules for General-Purpose Artificial Intelligence (GPAI) have begun to be clarified, and decisions have been made to implement notification obligations and penalties for general-purpose AI systems, as well as to establish the EU AI Office.
One of the most significant legal developments worldwide regarding generative artificial intelligence and the legal status and protection of such works—the EU AI Act—has also made an impact in our country, leading to the submission of Artificial Intelligence Law Proposal to the Presidency of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on June 24, 2024.
The Current Legal Status of AI-Generated Works Under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (no.5846) in Turkish Law
The legal status of works generated by artificial intelligence has not been explicitly regulated in Turkish law; therefore, the matter is addressed through interpretation within the framework of the existing provisions of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works. According to Article 1/b(a) of this Regulation, which defines “a) Work: Any intellectual and artistic product bearing the creator’s distinctive character and classified as works of science, literature, music, fine arts, or cinema,” any product created without human input cannot qualify as a work. In this context, content created entirely by artificial intelligence without human intervention is generally not recognized as a work and is not eligible for copyright protection. However, in cases where artificial intelligence is used merely as a tool and the human creative contribution is evident, the resulting product may be considered a work depending on the specific circumstances, and in such cases, ownership of the rights belongs to the person who provided that contribution.
However, with the rise in AI-generated content, it is clear that current regulations are insufficient and that clear regulations are needed to address the rapid development of generative AI.
The Bill Proposing Amendments to the Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, dated April 8, 2026, introduces a comprehensive proposal regarding copyright for works generated by artificial intelligence and the use of artificial intelligence.
One of the most notable aspects of the proposal is that it brings not only data but also outputs generated by artificial intelligence under the scope of regulation. According to the proposed bill, it is suggested that “the use of outputs generated by artificial intelligence systems for commercial or professional purposes—whether directly or indirectly replacing works, performances, phonograms, productions, or broadcasts; deriving economic value from them; or competing with them—is subject to licensing in exchange for appropriate compensation.” Accordingly, if an AI-generated output replaces work based on human labor or benefits from their economic value, such use will also be subject to licensing and collective licensing. Thus, while preventing AI-generated content from being entirely unrestricted, the aim is to protect the creative industries. While this approach presents a model aimed at balancing technological development with the economic interests of copyright holders, the vague terms used in the proposal—such as “appropriate compensation” and “directly or indirectly replacing”, fail to provide clear protection for rights holders and subject AI users to unpredictable legal liability.
