The Most Common Problems in Software Licensing Disputes in Türkiye

What are the most common problems encountered in software licensing disputes in Türkiye? This comprehensive guide explains licensing scope, user sharing, OEM transfer, trial and training use, evidence, compensation, and penalty risks within the framework of the Turkish Code of Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), Turkish Code of Obligations (TBK), Turkish Code of Civil Procedure (HMK), and Turkish Code of Criminal Procedure (CMK).

Software licensing disputes in Türkiye are no longer a narrow area concerning only technology companies. Because of the wide range of applications, from accounting software and CAD programs to ERP systems and cloud-based office tools, the scope and manner of licensing have become a direct area of ​​commercial risk. In Turkish law, computer programs are among the works protected under Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works; the purpose of the law is to define moral and financial rights, regulate the conditions for using these products, and specify the sanctions in case of unauthorized use. The definitions section of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works explicitly defines computer programs and includes them among the types of works.

Therefore, software licensing disputes cannot be viewed as a simple “lack of purchase” or merely a technical IT issue. According to the General Directorate of Copyrights of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, both civil and criminal proceedings can be initiated in cases of copyright infringement. The same statement from the Ministry clearly indicates that actions such as processing, reproducing, distributing, publicly transmitting, and publishing works without written permission, as well as possessing or storing illegally reproduced works for commercial purposes, fall within the scope of sanctions. Therefore, licensing issues often have more serious consequences than a company anticipates.

Moreover, there is no mandatory registration requirement for copyright protection. According to the Ministry's optional registration statement, all rights to the work belong to the person who created it; registration is not a process that establishes rights, but rather facilitates proof. Therefore, the fact that the software provider does not provide a separate registration certificate does not mean that unlicensed use is risk-free. The discussion often arises not from the question of "does the right exist?", but from the question of "under what scope was this right granted?".

1. The most common problem: misunderstanding of the license scope

In Türkiye, the most common cause of software licensing disputes is the misinterpretation of the license's scope by users. Companies often understand the phrase "we purchased the program" as "we can use it as we wish within the company." However, Article 52 of the Turkish Copyright Law explicitly mandates that contracts and dispositions concerning financial rights must be in writing and that the rights in question must be clearly defined. This structure indicates that the scope of a software license must be narrow and specific. The granting of one right does not mean that all other rights have also been granted.

In practice, this misunderstanding manifests in many different ways. A single-user license is used by the entire team, authorization granted for a specific location is extended to all branches, rights granted for only a specific version are extended to new versions, or a limited-term usage authorization is effectively treated as an indefinite right. When the parties do not carefully read the license text from the outset, after a while, technical use and contractual authorization become separated, and a dispute arises. In fact, the dispute often stems not from the existence of the software, but from the incorrect assumption of usage authorization.

2. Lack of written contract and documents

The second most common problem is insufficient documentation of the licensing relationship. Even if the company has actually purchased the software, its defense is severely weakened if the contract text, invoice, reseller information, user assignment, subscription renewal document, or license certificate are not regularly maintained. This problem is particularly common in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), as software purchases are often conducted via email, screenshots, or single-line offers, leading to a loss of documentation discipline.

At this point, Article 76 of the Copyright Law is very important. According to the official text, if the court provides sufficient evidence to form a strong conviction about the veracity of the plaintiff's claim, it may request the user to provide the necessary permissions and authorization documents or a list of the works used. Failure to provide these documents constitutes a presumption of unauthorized use. Therefore, the defense of "we actually had a license" becomes very weak if it is not supported by documentation. In Türkiye, a significant portion of licensing disputes arise not from infringement but from insufficient proof.

3. Single-user license to be used by the team

A third common problem is the sharing of single-user or named-user licenses within a company. In modern software licensing, many products now operate on a user-by-user basis. In this model, the license is granted to a specific person; sharing the same account within departments or across shifts effectively results in multiple people using a single license. Even if the program technically remains installed on a single machine, legally the license scope may have been exceeded. This has become particularly apparent in cloud-based software and products using centralized authentication.

Companies often think, "We're using it in the same office, we haven't distributed it externally." However, if the license type is user-based, the problem isn't that the device remains with the company, but rather exceeding the personal limits of authorization. This behavior can constitute a breach of contract, and the use beyond the scope of the license can also be argued as an infringement of economic rights. Therefore, single-user licenses are one of the easiest license types to violate in practice.

4. Improper handling or misuse of OEM licenses

The fourth common problem is OEM licenses. OEM licenses generally come bundled with specific hardware and operate in conjunction with that device. In practice, companies might assume it's natural to transfer the OEM license from an old machine to a new one when they upgrade a device. However, this licensing model is often device-specific and doesn't grant a freely transferable right to another device. Just because installation is technically possible doesn't mean legal authorization exists.

In Türkiye, many disputes arise, particularly regarding operating systems and some pre-installed commercial products, precisely for this reason. While company IT teams may believe they are acting correctly on the hardware side, they can create a licensing violation. The problem often stems not from bad faith, but from mistaking the OEM license for a normal retail license. However, the result remains the same: when the license type is misinterpreted, the legal basis for software use weakens.

5. Commercial use of trial and training versions

The fifth common problem is the use of trial or educational licenses for commercial purposes. Companies may install software for testing purposes first and then actually integrate it into the production chain. The use of educational or trial access in client projects is a frequent problem, particularly in the design, engineering, and architecture sectors. However, the licensing model limits the purpose of use, regardless of the program's technical functionality. Authorization granted for educational or trial purposes does not automatically translate into a right for commercial use.

With these types of files, users often think, "It's the same program, only the license type is different." From a legal perspective, the real difference lies precisely there. The software itself may be the same, but the permission granted by the rights holder is different. Therefore, transferring a trial or educational version to commercial use is not considered a simple license incompatibility, but rather a usage pattern exceeding the scope of permission. Disputes often stem from this flawed logic.

6. Continued use despite subscription expiration

Another common problem in subscription-based software models is the continued commercial use even after the subscription period has expired. Some products may continue to open due to local installation, access is gradually restricted on some systems, and some users only realize that their subscription hasn't been renewed during the audit process. However, legally, what matters is not whether the program opens, but whether the right to use it continues. When the subscription period ends, the legitimate basis for using the software also ends.

This situation creates problems in Türkiye, especially with corporate subscriptions. While finance or administrative teams delay renewal, operations teams continue to use the program. As a result, the company experiences a disconnect between license management and actual usage within its own structure. In such cases, the dispute escalates over the scope of the actual usage in the past period.

7. Unauthorized reseller or unclear licensing chain

Another common problem is acquiring software from an unauthorized vendor or through a legally ambiguous licensing chain. The company may have genuinely purchased the software; however, if the person selling the license is not authorized to grant it or misrepresents the license type, the end-user is at serious risk. Article 54 of the Turkish Copyright Law explicitly stipulates that even if acting in good faith, the acquirer of a financial right or a license to use the software from a person not authorized to transfer it is not protected. This provision demonstrates why reseller chain problems should be taken seriously.

In practice, sales made under titles such as "affordable license," "one-time corporate key," "global key," and "promotional subscription" can later create disputes. The company believes it is secure because it has paid a fee; however, its defense is limited if the license does not come from a legally valid source. In Türkiye, gray markets and unclear sales channels have become an increasingly significant problem in licensing disputes.

8. Violations originating from employees and external IT companies

Another common issue in software licensing disputes in Türkiye is when software is installed in the company's name but without the direct knowledge of the company's management. The IT firm installs a standard image, the employee downloads the program independently, the old employee account remains active, or the consultant uses a shared license. In such cases, companies often resort to the defense of "we didn't do it, the employee did." However, this defense is not always strong.

According to Article 116 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, even if the debtor has entrusted the performance of the obligation or the exercise of the contractual right to auxiliaries, they are still liable for the damages caused to the other party by these auxiliaries during the performance of the work. Similarly, Article 66 of the Turkish Copyright Law states that if the breach is committed by the representatives or employees of the business during the performance of the service, a lawsuit can be filed against the business owner, and the condition of fault is not required. Therefore, in many cases, a breach committed by an employee or subcontractor directly becomes a legal risk for the company.

9. Evidence problems and technical discrepancies that were discovered late

The issue of evidence is a major concern in the escalation of licensing disputes. Companies often only become aware of licensing status during audits, warning notices, or lawsuits. At that point, it can be unclear which version was installed and when, which users had access, the status of log records, and how long the software has been actively used on different devices. Unlike other commercial disputes, software disputes rely heavily on technical evidence.

Therefore, the institution of evidence preservation under Article 400 and subsequent articles of the Code of Civil Procedure is of great importance. If there is a possibility that the evidence may be lost or that it may become difficult to present in the future, on-site inspection, expert examination, and other preservation procedures can be carried out; in urgent cases, preservation is possible even without notification to the opposing party. Evidence preservation in software files is frequently a concern, especially since digital records can be erased, devices can be changed, and logs can be cyclically lost. Failure to protect evidence in a timely manner puts both the rights holder and the user company in a difficult position.

10. Ignoring claims for triple compensation, damages, and prohibitions

Many users and companies think that licensing disputes can be resolved by simply "paying the missing license fee." However, Article 68 of the Copyright Law establishes a much stricter system. According to the official text, in cases of processing, reproduction, distribution of reproduced copies, representation, or public transmission without written permission, the rights holder can demand up to three times the amount they would have requested if a contract had been made, or the current market value. This regulation removes the simple calculation of a license difference from the licensing dispute.

In addition, Article 69 of the Copyright Law addresses the prohibition of infringement, while Article 70 brings up material and moral damages and the transfer of profits. This means that the rights holder may not only demand monetary compensation; they may also request the cessation of use, the termination of access, and the return of commercial benefits. One of the significant reasons for the increase in software licensing disputes in Türkiye is that users initially underestimate these demands.

11. Misjudgment of the possibility of filing a criminal complaint

Another common mistake in software licensing disputes is the assumption that the matter will only result in a civil lawsuit. However, Article 71 of the Copyright Law stipulates imprisonment or a fine for actions such as processing, representing, reproducing, modifying, distributing, publicly communicating, publishing, and possessing illegally processed or reproduced works for commercial purposes without written permission, in cases of infringement of moral, financial, or related rights concerning protected works. Article 75, on the other hand, regulates that the investigation and prosecution of these crimes are dependent on a complaint, and the prosecutor can carry out the necessary seizure procedures.

The criminal implications of a case become more apparent, especially if it involves cracking, fake activation, disabling protective programs, or systematic commercial use. Since Article 134 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code allows for searching, copying, and, if necessary, seizing computers, computer programs, and files, software license disputes can transform into a legal process involving the collection of technical evidence. In Türkiye, this possibility is often noticed late, making crisis management more difficult for companies.

12. Cloud, group company, and multi-location usage issues

One of the fastest-growing areas of dispute in recent years has been cloud-based software, intercompany usage, and multi-location access. Because the software is managed from a single center, companies may automatically assume that the scope of the license is group-wide. However, the license may be tied to a specific user, a specific organization, or a specific seat pool. Appearing under the same tenant or admin panel does not always grant the same legal right of use.

This problem is particularly exacerbated during mergers, acquisitions, and reorganizations. Employees who move to the new company continue to use the same cloud account; licenses issued in the name of the old organization are effectively continued in the new structure; but the contractual basis is not updated. In such cases, the licensing chain and the company organization become disconnected. Due to the increasing use of cloud and subscription services in Türkiye, this issue has become one of the most frequent areas of dispute.

Conclusion

In Türkiye, the most common problems in software licensing disputes often stem not from technical deficiencies, but from a misunderstanding of the legal framework. Lack of written contracts, misinterpretation of license types, team-based use of single-user licenses, OEM porting, commercial use of trial and training versions, continued use after subscription expiration, unauthorized reseller chains, installations by employees and subcontractors, lack of evidence, and underestimation of the risk of triple penalties are the main problem areas.

The common thread running through these problems is that companies often view software as a "product," while the law views it as a "right." The conflict arises precisely from this difference in perspective. In Turkish law, a secure approach means not only installing and using the software, but also demonstrating at all times under what rights, to what extent, with what documentation, and with what user model it is being used. Software licensing disputes often escalate not so much because of the infringement itself, but because of the inability to provide clear answers to these questions.