Assessment of the ‘Quotation’ Method in Videos Published on Social Media in Terms of Turkish Intellectual Property Law
The production of social media content in the form of videos has undergone a significant transformation in recent years, driven by the proliferation and popularity of social media platforms designed for creating and consuming video content. Today, many of the most widely consumed visual content on social media is created and published by “ordinary” people who have not turned content creation into a profession.
Especially on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, content is often created, shared, or remixed by platform users, sometimes incorporating elements from other works. Some of these videos can be considered as original works, while others may potentially infringe on the copyright of the owners of other works due to various reasons. In recent times, it has become common to see videos, especially documentaries and collage-style content, that use visual, video clips, or music/sound from various other works.
In Turkish law, the fundamental legislation on intellectual and artistic works is Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (“FSEK, Law”). However, the Law does not directly regulate the copyright status of such content, nor does it directly provide an explanation regarding the concept of adaptation. Furthermore, the fair use principle, which is familiar to YouTube users, is not a recognized concept in Turkish legislation. Nevertheless, even though not explicitly regulated in the Law, we believe that there should be an evaluation of fairness for works created by utilizing another work or based on it.
Moreover, there is no direct regulation on this issue in Turkish law, and perhaps due to the lack of disputes, there are no established court precedents regarding this matter. However, some decisions of the Court of Cassation indicate the creation of a concept similar to the fair use principle, which is based on the purpose, but it has not been consistently filled..
In this article, we will first explain whether videos can be considered as works of art, and then define the regulations and concepts related to the subject in the FSEK. Afterwards, we will explain the legal aspects of using a part of another video or another type of work in a video.
2.ARTISTIC QUALITY OF VIDEOS
A.Conditions for Being Considered a Work
For a product to be considered within the scope of the FSEK and to be protected, it must belong to one of the categories of works of art specified in the FSEK and have the “uniqueness of its owner.” Since the FSEK follows the principle of a limited number of work categories, for a creation to be considered a work, it must belong to one of the following categories: science and literature, music, fine arts, or cinematographic work. In addition to these, compilation and derivative works explained below also benefit from the protection of the FSEK.
The other condition for a work is “uniqueness,” which means that the work must be “original” and reflect the personal “stamp” of the creator. The uniqueness condition essentially ensures that a work of intellectual property can be distinguished from other intellectual products.
B.Protection of Videos
Article 5 of the FSEK defines cinematographic works as a series of related moving images that can be displayed by electronic, mechanical, or similar means and that have aesthetic, scientific, educational, or technical content of any kind. If videos of the type discussed in this article have uniqueness, they will be protected as cinematographic works.
If they do not have uniqueness, the relevant video may not benefit from copyright protection, but it may benefit from protection against unfair competition. According to Article 84/3 of the FSEK, cinematographic products that do not have the nature of a work are protected within the scope of the provisions on unfair competition. In this context, Articles 56 to 61 of Turkish Commercial Code No. 6102 are applicable to disputes covered by these provisions, and it is not necessary for the parties to be merchants.
3.USING OTHER CONTENT IN VIDEOS
As mentioned in the introduction, neither direct regulation nor established court precedents exist in Turkish law regarding the use of one work from another work or using another type of content in a video. However, there are some regulations in the FSEK that can be applied to the subject; after all, a work of intellectual property is often created by “using” another work in one way or another. The only thing that changes is the form and degree of this use.
A derived work is a work that is created by using another work and is “dependent” on this source work to some extent. Despite this dependency, there must be uniqueness for the creator of the derived work. Translation is the best example of a derived work. For example, in a translated novel, the language of the work changes, but the content remains the same, but the uniqueness of the original work and the creativity of the translator are intertwined.
It should be noted that the “adaptation right” concerning a work is exclusively owned by the author of the work (Article 21 of the FSEK). Nevertheless, a processing work can be created without the author’s permission, which is known as unauthorized adaptation. For example, anyone may want to translate a passage from a novel they really like into a different language and share it with friends or a limited number of followers. However, when the processing work is materially evaluated, such as being published or made available to the public, the rights of the original author will be violated. Furthermore, the existence of a processing work should not harm the rights of the original author.
Regarding videos, processing works can also be involved. A good example specified in the law is the transformation of music, fine arts, scientific and literary works into a film or adaptation into a format suitable for radio, television, and broadcasting. For instance, a short film that solely showcases Van Gogh’s paintings and tells his life story or a video containing a sketch based on Orhan Pamuk’s novel “Snow” would qualify as a processing work. In such cases, permission from the original authors must be obtained before adaptation can be done.
As mentioned above, the right to create an independent work by utilizing another work, in other words, by “processing” that work, belongs to the owner of the original work. However, what is meant by free use is the freedom to “be inspired” by a work. There is no direct regulation regarding free use in the FSEK. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that every work is undoubtedly based on the cultural heritage it is a part of and draws inspiration from it. For this reason, in cases where inspiration is evident and felt, the work will be covered by free use protection as long as the specificity requirement is met.
In cases of inspiration, there is no need to obtain permission from the owner of the original work. After all, the work created by drawing inspiration from another work is an independent work. For example, an artist who depicts a location described in a novel, adding their own interpretation to it, has drawn inspiration from the depiction in the book and created an independent work. In such a case, it cannot be said that the artist needs to obtain permission from the rights holders of the novel. As with any type of work, videos can also fall under the concept of free use. The limit of free use is plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of presenting someone else’s work as one’s own. Plagiarism combines with elements such as not mentioning the real author’s name and an inappropriate degree of reproduction.
Limitations on the Rights of the Author and Quotation
The FSEK comes closest to regulating the subject of this article with its provisions on quotation and excerpt. A “quotation” is the use of parts of a work, with attribution, verbatim or in paraphrased form, in another work. Within the criteria and conditions specified in the law, it is not necessary to obtain the author’s permission or consent to make a quotation from a work, and this is referred to as the freedom of quotation.
In the FSEK, the rights of the author are limited for reasons of public order, general interest, and private interest. An example of this limitation for public order is the use and reproduction of a work in the form of a photograph for the identification of a defendant in court. A speech given in the Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) broadcast on television is an example of this limitation for general interest. In this context, the freedom of quotation is one of the limitations placed on the rights of the author. The 35th article of the FSEK outlines in detail under what conditions and forms a quotation can be made.
In Article 35 of the FSEK, although it is not explicitly named as such, there is a distinction made between substantial and minor quotation, likely influenced by German law. “Substantial quotation,” defined as the quotation of an entire work, is explicitly provided for in the law and is limited to scholarly works quotated from publicly displayed fine art works or published other works. For music works, as well as scientific and literary works, permission for what could be described as “quotation of parts and sections” has been granted, which is akin to minor quotation. There is no explicit regulation for quotations from or to cinematographic works or cinematographic works.
It should be noted that a quotation can only be made from a publicly displayed work. This public display is indicated as either “publication” or “presentation to the public,” depending on the type of work. Moreover, it is a requirement for every type of quotation to provide attribution and include the name of the author.
4.QUOTATIONS IN VIDEOS
As explained above, a video, whether or not it possesses the characteristics of a work, will benefit from protection under the FSEK. However, it is necessary to clarify the legal implications of quotations made in videos, whether they are of works that have or do not have the characteristics of intellectual property. Furthermore, the general conditions related to quotations need to be explained.
Conditions for Quotation
- For the work from which a quotation is to be made, there are certain conditions that need to be met. As detailed below, there is no specific requirement regarding the type of the work from which the quotation will be made. However, it is essential that the work has been publicly disclosed or published. Public disclosure refers to a work of intellectual or artistic nature being made perceptible to third parties through reading, displaying, representing, or broadcasting.
- In terms of the work to which the quotation will be applied, there is also debate about the type of work. However, it is a requirement that the product to be quoted should have the characteristics of a work and should be independent.
While these are the general conditions for all types of quotations, there is no specific legal regulation for cinema works. Therefore, the purpose of the quotation in cinema works will be evaluated based on the type of the cinema work and the specific part that is being quoted. Regardless of the type of cinema work, the purpose of the quotation should be to illuminate the content, and the quotation should be made to the extent justified by the purpose. In this context, illuminating the content of the cinema work can manifest itself in supporting the ideas within the work, presenting criticism, and enhancing the understanding of explanations. In terms of the “extent,” the evaluation will consider whether the purpose of the quotation and the quoted portions do not unreasonably damage the financial rights of the author.
In Article 35 of FSEK, the types of quotations are regulated as follows: The first paragraph covers quotations from scientific and literary works, the second paragraph pertains to musical works, and the third paragraph allows quotations from scientific works. Since there is no limitation specified for the types of scientific works in the third paragraph, it is possible to make quotations from a scientific cinema work. Similarly, the absence of limitations for the types of works to be quoted allows any work to be quoted by a scientific cinema work.
At this point, while the subject and approach are important in determining the scientific nature, it is also clear that no strict and absolute limitations can be imposed. The most evident example of a scientific cinema work is documentaries. In this context, it should be noted that quotations can be made from one documentary to another documentary. Of course, the documentary must meet the requirements for cinema works; for instance, it is a requirement for a documentary to have a screenwriter and a screenplay. Quotations can also be made from other types of works to a work of this nature; for example, in a documentary about the Turkish War of Independence, there is no problem in showing a Zeybek dance, playing folk music, or displaying images of the statue of Demirci Mehmet Efe while presenting the story.
Quotation from a non-scientific cinema work is not regulated in the Law. In legal doctrine, it is stated that a non-scientific work, such as a film shot for screening in cinema, can serve as a source for quotation, and it is argued that Article 35 of the Law should be interpreted in this way.
In our opinion, the expression in this paragraph should be interpreted broadly. Restricting the interpretation of the term expressed in language mentioned in this paragraph to only works expressed in language would contradict the purpose of the provision and the institution of quotation. However, the Court of Cassation does not agree with this view, and it states that cinema works, which are regulated as an independent type of work in Article 5 of the Law, cannot be subject to quotation.
This view stems from a narrow interpretation of the relevant provision of the Law, which in the first paragraph of that article mentions “taking some sentences and paragraphs from a publicized work.” However, in our opinion, the mentioned expression should be subject to an expansive interpretation to protect artistic and expressive freedom and promote cultural development. Therefore, we believe that cinema works should also be considered subjects for quotation.
Furthermore, there is no specific regulation in the Law regarding quotations from such cinema works, and there are multiple opinions in legal doctrine. In this regard, we believe that cinema works not only serve as sources for quotations but are also works from which quotations can be made. The absence of a specific provision in the Law regarding cinema works in the context of quotations is likely due to the legislature not being able to envision current developments. Considering the preparation and publication date of the Law, it is necessary to acknowledge the existence of a legal gap. Therefore, Article 35 of the Law, especially the first paragraph, should be interpreted to include cinema works. An alternative interpretation would be contrary to the purpose of the law, the spirit of the Law, and also to the freedom of thought and expression as regulated in Article 26 of the Constitution.
Within the framework of these explanations, concrete examples of video quotations that one may encounter include:
The Use of a Part of One Video in Another Video
Firstly, a situation may arise where both videos have the status of works. For example, a documentary examining the political environment of the 90s might incorporate a segment from another documentary like a snippet from the “32. Gün” program. Likewise, in non-scientific content, such situations can occur; for instance, a YouTube channel that regularly creates film critique videos in its unique style might want to showcase certain portions of the film it’s analyzing. As mentioned before, a cinema work can also be subject to quotation. In such cases, acceptance of the quotation right is required, provided that the general conditions and rules for quoting are adhered to.
On the other hand, a video without the status of a work can be used in any work. For example, in a 140 Journos video about the Gezi Park protests, a video randomly shot on someone’s phone during the demonstrations can be used. As mentioned earlier, non-work cinema products are also protected under the provisions regarding unfair competition (FSEK Article 84/3). However, it is not possible to assume that the restriction on quotation for works has not been applied to these types of products. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the right to quotation is also valid for these types of products.
In cases where the right to quotation is valid, the video owner can use the content without obtaining any permission. However, it is expected that the video owner will disclose the source of the content and the rights holder to the viewers and act in accordance with the principles of fairness.
The Use of a Part of a Work in a Video
Here, first and foremost, it should be explained what is meant by a quotation from another type of work. For instance, it could involve showing a famous, publicly available painting in a film or a book passage being read during a video by a book critic who is a YouTube user. As mentioned earlier, since quotations can also be made from cinema works, such quotations will be within the scope of the right to quotation if they comply with the conditions. Of course, for such a quotation to be possible, the respective video must only consist of a series of moving images and/or sounds, and it should not qualify as a cinema work.
Furthermore, in addition to the general rules mentioned above, the relevant legal provisions concerning the work from which a quotation is made must also be considered. For instance, a musical quotation to a film score cannot be evaluated within the scope of the provisions regulating musical quotations. This is because film music is an accompaniment to a series of events and images that do not qualify as a cinema work. Therefore, in such a case, the consent of the rights holder is required. On the other hand, for example, making a musical quotation from a work that focuses on the development of rock music is considered a musical quotation. In this case, the requirement that the quotation must be made for a valid purpose will come into play. Likewise, if it is acknowledged that the videos created by a TikTok user have the status of works, it is possible for the music used in the background of their videos to also be subject to quotation. However, platforms like TikTok and Instagram have provisions in their license agreements that state the platform can re-license the relevant work for use by others. These contract clauses are presented to users with an acceptance requirement for using the platform. In this regard, if such contract terms are in place, it may not be necessary to evaluate the quotation exception.
Press quotations are regulated in Article 36 titled “Newspaper Content” and Article 37 titled “News” of the FSEK. These articles regulate the quoting of content from a work or content that, even if not considered a work, appears in the press based on freedom of receiving and conveying information. Video quotations can also be relevant in the context of press quotations. Article 37 specifically mentions “means of visual transmission” and “devices like television.” However, when it comes to press quotations, it’s important to pay attention to the conditions specified in the articles.
In this context, the first paragraph of Article 36 of the FSEK establishes the initial limit for the free quotation of daily news and reports, previously regulated in Article 15 of the old Press Law. Although the new Press Law, Law No. 5187, does not contain a provision corresponding to this, Article 24 includes a provision for unauthorized quotations. According to this provision, those who republish news, articles, and pictures published in a periodical without citing the source and those who republish these works without the permission of the periodical’s owner will be subject to a fine. It should be noted that in this provision, the term “products” subject to quotation has a broader meaning in the context of the FSEK than “works.” Therefore, whether it is considered a work in the context of the FSEK or not, the permission of the publisher is required. However, if there is a work in the sense of the FSEK, the protection and restriction system of the FSEK will come into play.
Regarding the quotation of press content other than news and reports, such as a newspaper column, the second paragraph of the same article should be taken into account. Here, the provision is narrowly regulated, mentioning a “writing” published in a newspaper or magazine. It is stated in legal doctrine that this expression cannot be interpreted broadly, and, for example, a quotation from a television program would not fall within the scope of this provision. Moreover, even if the product to be quoted does not have the status of a work, for example, in cases where a video of an explosion is quoted, the provisions of unfair competition under Article 84 of the FSEK may apply.
On the other hand, for quotations falling under the second paragraph, it is a requirement that the subject of the quotation must remain current, there should be no reservation of quotation rights in the article, and the source must be cited.
While Article 36 of the FSEK regulates quotations from all types of press content and news, Article 37 regulates the quotation of works of thought and art for news purposes. All types of works are included in the scope of this provision. For example, in an evening news broadcast, a brief mention of the most famous song of a singer who passed away that day is possible. However, it should be noted that the news should be related to the subject of the work or the author of the work, and the use should not harm the legal interests of the rights holder. It is also a requirement here that the news maintains its “relevance,” and there must be a connection between the subject of the news and the work or the author. The requirement to cite the source is also evident in this context.
Furthermore, for all these forms of quotations, it should not be forgotten to observe the general quotation conditions mentioned above.
5.IMPORTANT ASPECTS AND RECOURSE FOR QUOTATIONS AND VIOLATIONS
The general conditions for quotations have been mentioned above. The main criterion for evaluation is that the quotation cannot exceed the extent justified by the purpose. This concept is also mentioned in Article 35/1-b.3 of the FSEK.
Regarding the limits of quotations, the conditions and criteria were expressed as follows in an old decision of the Court of Cassation mentioned at the beginning of our article:
- Whether the use demonstrates a ratio justified by the purpose,
- Whether the use, even if used for the purpose of informing the public, infringes on the moral rights of the work and the author,
- Whether the use is done in a specific manner, that is, by making reference (by citation),
- Whether the name of the used work and its owner is indicated.
In addition to these criteria, it can be stated that there must be a lawful purpose for the quotation, and the quotation must be made within the framework required by this purpose. On the other hand, accepting the criterion of infringement of moral rights in cases where quotations are not subject to any criteria is, in our opinion, not possible. Because the freedom of quotation is a limitation on the moral rights of the author, not a limitation on the economic rights. Quotation can only be subject to a moral compensation in cases and to the extent that it violates personality rights.
However, in some cases, it is seen that financial or moral rights violations can be decided without any criteria. For example, in a case dated 2018, the music of the relevant artist was used in a documentary in the form of a biography for a total of 40 seconds, playing in the background. The court decided that this use constituted a violation of the “right to prohibit changes in the work” as stated in Article 16 of the FSEK.
In our opinion, in such cases, the assessment of whether the purpose justifies the extent of the quotation, as determined by the criteria set by the Court of Cassation and expressed in comparative law, should be made. As we mentioned, it is against the spirit of the Law and the purpose of the provision to proceed on the presumption that one of the moral rights of the author has been violated, even if the general conditions for quotations have been met.
If a quotation does not fall within the scope of the quotation freedom and in any way violates the rights of the author, the legal remedies that the parties can resort to are as follows:
- Determination: If the violation constitutes infringement, it can be determined through a determination lawsuit, even if not specifically regulated in the FSEK. However, a determination lawsuit can only be filed in a situation where a claim lawsuit can be filed. On the other hand, determination can be a positive determination lawsuit regarding whether a violation exists, as well as a negative determination lawsuit opened by individuals benefiting from the work, stating that their actions do not constitute a violation.
- Prevention of Infringement: The prevention of infringement, without requiring the fault of the infringer, is similar to YouTube’s Content ID system. This method is regulated in Article 69 of the FSEK. In the prevention of infringement, the author of the work is filing a lawsuit regarding situations where the infringement has not yet occurred but is likely to occur again or continue.
- Refutation of Infringement: When copyright infringement has commenced and is ongoing, often a refutation case is considered instead of a cessation of that infringement. However, both of these cases can be filed simultaneously. In cases of refutation of copyright infringement as regulated in Articles 66 to 68 of the Copyright Law, the request is made to eliminate the consequences of an unjust copyright violation. The refutation of copyright infringement case can pertain to both financial and moral rights violations. Unlike in cessation cases, the fault of the infringer is not considered here (Copyright Law Art. 66/3). On the other hand, in cases of refutation of copyright infringement related to the violation of financial rights, if the copyright holder had entered into a contract with the person who violated their financial rights, they can demand up to three times the price or the determined market value from that person (Copyright Law Art. 68/1). This amount represents a legal option distinct from the “compensation” provisions outlined in the Copyright Law.
- Compensation: Compensation cases outlined in the Copyright Law essentially reiterate or make references to the provisions regarding material and moral compensation within the Turkish Civil Code. However, there is doctrinal debate regarding whether a moral damage and the fault of the infringer should be considered in moral compensation cases. On the other hand, according to one viewpoint, in cases where the freedom of quotation has been exceeded, even if the general conditions related to quotation are met, moral compensation may be applicable under the provisions of unfair competition. In terms of material compensation cases, the general criteria to be considered include a financial right being unlawfully violated, the occurrence of material damage due to this violation, the presence of fault on the part of the infringer, and the existence of a causal relationship between fault and damage.
As mentioned, the concept of “fair use” is not explicitly mentioned in Turkish copyright legislation. While this Anglo-Saxon-origin concept has been mentioned by Turkish courts on an exceptional basis, it has not been incorporated into Turkish law through any precedent. However, the subject of this article pertains to numerous videos that are being published on YouTube, and they are subject to YouTube’s own copyright policies. Among these policies is the inclusion of fair use.
It should be noted that in many instances within the scope of YouTube, the evaluation of the fair use principle may not be necessary. This is because YouTube has adopted a multi-tiered system for copyright infringement cases, and it is not capable of making fair use assessments on its own. The authority to determine fair use under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) regulations that YouTube applies rests with the courts.
When YouTube receives a copyright infringement notice, it promptly removes the content. If the owner of the content submits a valid counter-notification, YouTube then forwards this notification to the person who filed the infringement notice. Legal processes between the parties commence from this point, and only after this stage can the fair use principle come into play. Furthermore, within the YouTube platform, there is the Content ID system that operates independently of fair use and automatically detects similar content. In practice, many copyright infringements on YouTube are addressed within the scope of this system. However, this system does not possess the capability to determine fair use.
- In Turkish law, the freedom of quotation has been subject to a narrow and limited interpretation by the judiciary, influenced by relevant legal provisions. Compared to doctrinal discussions and developments in foreign countries, especially in common law systems, there has been limited progress in Turkish law in this regard.
- The provisions of the FSEK concerning freedom of quotation and related liberties are not keeping pace with the evolving age. It falls to the judiciary and legal scholars to not only interpret legal rules through a literal approach but also to generate an innovative and realistic approach in this context.
- Telif hukukunun amacı, eser sahibinin haklarını belirlemek ve korumaktan ibaret değildir. Dahil olduğu kültür havzasına katkı yapacak yeni eser ve eser sahipleri de en az mevcut eserler ve eser sahipleri kadar korunmaya değerdir. Bu anlamda hukuk anlayışı, koruma ve serbesti arasındaki sınırı çizerken; özgürlüğün esas, sınırlamanın istisna olması kuralı etrafında şekillenmelidir.
- The fact that the term “fair use” is not explicitly mentioned in Turkish law does not change the fact that the principle of “good faith” should be carefully considered in every restriction placed on the rights of the creator. Especially in cases of quoting in cinematic works, the fact that legal authorities often act without considering the freedom of quotation and the principle of good faith goes against the spirit of the Copyright Law (FSEK) from the outset.
Av.Enes Duran – Av.Hasan Çakan
 As one of the earliest examples, see: Yargıtay 4. HD, 8866/5628, 10.05.1977; Yargıtay HGK E. 1977/11-394, K. 1979/231, T. 09.09.1979.
 YILMAZ Murat, Dijital Kütüphanelerde, Elektronik Veri Tabanlarında ve Multimedya Ürünlerinde Telif Hakkı Sorunu, Ankara Barosu Fikri Mülkiyet ve Rekabet Hukuku Dergisi, 2005 / 1, 86.
 TOPRAKKAYA İrem, Fikir ve Sanat Eserlerinden Doğan Uyuşmazlıkların Arabuluculuk Yolu ile Çözümü, Mart 2021, s. 80.
 EREL Şafak, Türk Fikir ve Sanat Hukuku, Ankara, 2009, s. 44.
 TEKERCİ Uğur, Telif Hukukunda İşlenme Eserler (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), Ağustos 2017, s. 34.
 TEKİNALP Ünal, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukuku, İstanbul, 2012, s. 137.
 TEKİNALP, s. 158-159.
 CERİTOĞLU Filiz, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukukunda İntihal ve Esinlenme (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), 2008, s. 70-71.
 YASAMAN Hamdi, Fikri ve Sınai Mülkiyet Hukuku (…), İstanbul, 2006, s. 287.
 SOYKAN, İsmail Cem, Fikri Mülkiyet Hukukunda Basın İktibasları (İÜHFM C. LXVII), 2009, s. 183-208
ATEŞ, Mustafa, Fikir ve Sanat Eserlerinin Kamuya Sunulması: Alenileşmiş ve Yayımlanmamış Eserler Fikri Hukuka Göre Korunamaz Mı?, Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Dergisi, 23, s. 227.
 ÖNCÜ Özge, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukukunda İktibas Serbestisi ve Sınırları (Doktora Tezi), 2009, s. 318.
 For example, in the decision of the Court of Cassation, Case No. E. 2003/4-260, K. 2003/271, dated 02.04.2003, the work titled “Yeşilçamda Bir Sultan” was recognized as having scientific quality.
 ÖNCÜ, s. 298.
 Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2016/14735, K. 2018/5691, T. 25.09.2018
 For similar opinions, see: ÖNCÜ, pages 172-178. For opposing views, see: ATEŞ, Mustafa, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Üzerindeki Hakların Kapsamı ve Sınırlandırılması, 2003, s. 304.
 For similar perspectives and other opinions, see: ÖNCÜ, s. 312.
 ÖNCÜ, s. 317.
 SOYKAN, s. 190-191.
 SOYKAN, s. 197-198.
 See: Footnote Number 1.
 In the same perspective, ÖNCÜ, s. 76.
 Regarding the relationship between quotation and moral compensation, see: Yargıtay HGK, E. 1980/1, K. 1981/2, T. 18.02.1981.
 İstanbul 1. Fikrî ve Sınaî Haklar Hukuk Mahkemesi, E. 2018/52, K. 2019/396, T. 16.10.2019.
 Yargıtay 11. HD, E. 2004/6683, K. 2005/3135, T. 04.04.2005.
 ÖZKAN Aytül, Fikri Hukukta Eser Sahibinin Malî Hakları ve Mali Hakların İhlalinde Açılabilecek Hukuk Davaları (Yüksek Lisans Tezi), 2017, s. 98.
 For discussions on the topic and the Court of Cassation explanations regarding the criterion for moral damage, see: ÖZKAN, s. 101-102.
 ÖZTAN Fırat, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukuku, Ankara, 2008, s. 672.