May a photo found online be used freely?
When preparing its website or social media account, a business may download a photo found through a search engine. The absence of a watermark or the fact that the file can be downloaded easily does not mean that permission to use it has been granted. The same rule applies to blog posts, product pages, advertisements, presentations and printed catalogues.
The Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 (FSEK) grants authors economic rights such as reproduction, distribution and communication to the public. Uploading a photo to a server concerns the right of reproduction. Making the photo accessible on a website or social media account may engage the right of communication to the public. As a rule, lawful use requires the permission of the right holder or a valid licence.
The fact that a photo appears in a search engine, has been shared on a social media account or is used on other websites does not alter this position. The Ministry of Culture and Tourism also expressly states that publishing a photo online does not make it freely available for use.
Is every photo a copyright-protected work?
Not every photo receives the same legal protection. To qualify as a work under FSEK, a photo must be the product of intellectual effort, bear the personal characteristics of its author and fall within one of the categories of works specified by the Law. Photographic works with aesthetic value may qualify as works of fine art. Photos of a technical or scientific nature may also be protected as scientific and literary works if the relevant conditions are met.
Information provision, framing, composition, camera angle, timing, staging and post-production editing may all be relevant to the assessment. The use of professional equipment is not sufficient in itself. A photo taken with a phone may also bear its author’s personal characteristics. Whether a photo qualifies as a work is determined through expert examination in many disputes.
A photo that does not qualify as a work is not entirely without protection. Article 84 of FSEK may permit recourse to unfair competition provisions in respect of photos that meet its conditions. In its decision numbered 2024/4106 E. and 2025/2656 K., the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) held that ordinary product photos did not qualify as works. Nevertheless, the Chamber upheld the ruling that the unauthorised use of the same images in commercial promotion constituted unfair competition.
Who owns the rights in a photo?
As a rule, the author of a photo that qualifies as a work is the person who took it. The fact that the photo was taken for a client or that the photography fee was paid does not automatically transfer all economic rights to the client. For works created by an employee in the course of their duties, the authority to exercise the economic rights may belong to the employer, depending on the contract and the nature of the work.
An agreement for the transfer or exercise of economic rights must be made in writing, and the rights transferred must be specified individually. The agreement should clearly regulate the media in which the photo may be used, the term, the territory, use in advertising, the authority to make alterations and the right to authorise third-party use. The mere delivery of the file or inclusion of a general photography fee on an invoice does not, in every case, establish an unrestricted transfer covering every form of use.
A company using a photo should also verify whether the person granting the licence is actually authorised to do so. A defect in the chain of rights between the photographer, agency, stock platform and client may give rise to a dispute. FSEK does not protect a person who acquires economic rights or permission to use a work from an unauthorised person merely because the acquirer acted in good faith.
Is citing the source or naming the photographer sufficient?
Naming the photographer does not replace the required permission to use the photo. Attribution concerns the author’s moral rights. Permission to reproduce and publish the photo online concerns economic rights. Therefore, even use that cites the source may constitute an infringement if it is unauthorised.
Statutory exceptions exist for purposes such as quotation, news reporting and education. Each exception has distinct requirements concerning its purpose, scope and attribution. The use of a photo in an advertisement, product promotion or corporate social media account does not fall within these exceptions merely because the source is cited. Both the purpose of the use and the function of the image within the article or news report are assessed together.
A separate legal issue may arise if the photo includes an identifiable person. The photographer’s permission is not always sufficient in relation to the image and personality rights of the person depicted. The provisions of FSEK concerning portraits, personality rights and, depending on the circumstances, personal data protection rules must also be considered.
What claims may be brought in cases of unauthorised use?
The right holder may seek a determination and cessation of the infringement. Claims may also seek the removal of the photo from publication, prevention of repeated use and elimination of the effects of unlawfully reproduced content. The appropriate legal remedy depends on whether the use is continuing and whether the photo qualifies as a work.
Article 68 of FSEK permits a claim for up to three times the hypothetical contractual fee or the assessed current market fee for the unauthorised use of a work. An award of three times the fee is not a fixed penalty automatically applied in every case. The court assesses the claim, the scope of the use and the appropriate licence fee on the basis of the evidence in the case file.
In its decision numbered 2025/4101 E. and 2026/965 K., the 11th Civil Chamber of the Court of Cassation considered the unauthorised use of photorealistic images and a catalogue design. The Chamber upheld the ruling awarding a pecuniary amount calculated at three times the current market fee. The decision shows that the use of original images in a commercial catalogue may have financial consequences under Article 68 of FSEK.
Removing or omitting the author’s name, or making alterations that impair the integrity of the photo, may also infringe moral rights. Where the relevant conditions are met, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and the surrender of profits derived from the infringement may be claimed. Where certain claims are brought together, the Law contains deduction rules preventing double recovery for the same interest.
How should evidence be preserved when an infringement is discovered?
When unauthorised use is discovered, taking screenshots alone may not be sufficient in every dispute. The web address, publication date, owner of the account or website, page on which the image was used and extent of the use should be recorded together. Where necessary, a notarial determination (noter tespiti) or a court-ordered preservation of evidence (delil tespiti) may be requested. The appropriate method depends on the likelihood that the content will be deleted and the circumstances of the dispute.
The right holder should also retain records demonstrating ownership of the photo. Raw files, sequences of shots, file information, records of initial publication, delivery correspondence, invoices and agreements may be used as evidence. Optional recordation and registration (isteğe bağlı kayıt ve tescil) does not create the right. It may, however, facilitate proof in disputes concerning the date and ownership of rights.
Subsequent removal of the content does not mean that the earlier use never occurred. Conversely, proving the extent of a post removed before evidence was collected may be difficult. The appropriate course—such as notifying the platform, issuing a formal notice, conducting licence negotiations or bringing proceedings—should be determined according to the particular case after the available evidence has been reviewed.
What should companies check before using a photo?
Companies should document the source of the image and the licence terms before use. Whether the licence covers use on websites, social media, advertisements and printed materials, as well as the right to modify the image, should be examined separately. Restrictions relating to the term, territory, number of users and authorisation of third-party use should also be recorded.
Downloading a file from a stock photo service does not confer an unrestricted right of use. Standard and extended licences may contain different terms. Separate restrictions may apply following the expiry of a subscription, to use by team members or to advertising campaigns. The licence terms, proof of purchase and the date on which the file was downloaded should be retained together.
The terms of use of social media platforms do not generally permit other users to download content and republish it for advertising or promotional purposes. Using a platform’s internal sharing function is not the same as downloading an image and uploading it as a new post. Every use must remain within the scope of the permission obtained.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are photos found on Google Images free to use?
No. Appearing in a search engine does not mean that a photo is free of copyright or available free of charge. The source of the image and its licence terms must be checked separately.
Is naming the photographer sufficient to use a photo?
No. Attribution concerns moral rights and does not replace permission to use the photo. Valid permission or a licence may be required in relation to the economic rights.
Is an unregistered photo protected?
Yes. As a rule, copyright protection arises when the work is created. Optional recordation and registration is not a condition of protection, but it may facilitate proof.
Is compensation of three times the fee payable for every unauthorised use?
No. Article 68 of FSEK permits a claim for up to three times the relevant fee. The claim is assessed by reference to whether the photo qualifies as a work, ownership of the rights, the scope of use and the current market licence fee.