What is the use of unlicensed software? What are the consequences under Turkish law?

What risks does using unlicensed software entail under Turkish law? Examine in detail the copyright infringement risks under the Turkish Copyright Law (FSEK), triple damages claims, criminal liability, company audits, and legal protection options.

In today's rapidly digitalizing world, software is no longer just a technical tool; it has become the backbone of commercial activities, corporate organization, accounting, design processes, production, and data management. For this very reason, the use of unlicensed software should not be considered merely a "technical deficiency" concerning the IT department, but a serious risk area that can directly lead to intellectual property, contractual, compensation, and criminal law consequences. In Turkish law, computer programs are explicitly protected as works; the use of financial rights belongs exclusively to the author, and uses such as reproduction, distribution, and public transmission without the authorization of the rights holder or a valid license relationship may give rise to legal disputes. Moreover, the last amendment to the current consolidated FSEK (Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works) text is December 25, 2021; therefore, this area is both a living and closely monitored area of ​​legislation.

When unlicensed software is mentioned, most people think of pirated CDs, cracked programs, or compromised license keys. However, in practice, the scope of the violation is much broader. Installing a single-user license on multiple devices in the office, continuing to use software after a time-limited license has expired, using a training or trial version for commercial purposes, unauthorized duplication of a subscription-based program within the company, distributing license keys to other branches or group companies, or disabling technological measures such as access control and encryption are all within the same risk area. This is because the Turkish Copyright Law defines computer programs separately in its definitions section and provides special protection as scientific and literary works; accordingly, the right of reproduction is regulated to cover not only physical copying but also the installation, viewing, execution, transmission, and storage of the program.

Therefore, the issue of unlicensed software is not something that can be easily dismissed with the defense of "we had the program but didn't copy it." In software law, the act of use itself is often intertwined with the technical acts of reproduction and storage. Considering that the right to reproduce the original or copies of a work belongs exclusively to the author; and that the rights of distribution and public transmission through means of signal, sound, and image transmission are also among the author's financial rights, exceeding the licensing limit directly touches upon the area of ​​copyright protection in most cases. Therefore, infringement of a license agreement and copyright infringement are discussed together in most specific cases.

What exactly does unlicensed software mean?

Unlicensed software, in its simplest definition, is software used outside the scope of the usage permission granted by the rights holder or authorized distributor. The key concept here is "permission." Simply downloading software from the internet, having physical access to the installation file, obtaining a copy from another company, or the company possessing an outdated serial number from previous years does not, by itself, constitute legally permissible use. A valid license model is evaluated in conjunction with factors such as the number of users, the number of devices, the duration, the version, geographical coverage, commercial use permission, update rights, and maintenance conditions. Therefore, the fundamental legal question is not "Does the program work?" but "Is the program being used under valid license terms?" This conclusion is directly related to the fact that computer programs are considered works under the Copyright Law and that financial rights are granted to the author.

In companies, unlicensed usage often manifests not as overt piracy, but as process malfunctions. Common occurrences include the purchasing department misunderstanding the licensing model, an external IT company using a single license for multiple installations, failure to close former employees' accounts, confusing cloud licenses with local installations, or keeping old copies active on the system even after subscription cancellation. From a legal standpoint, what matters is not just whether the company is engaging in "intentional piracy," but whether the unauthorized use actually occurred. When determining the scope of the violation, the installed version, active users, usage duration, server access, log records, and license documentation are all examined together. This assessment is crucial due to the broad interpretation of the right to copy and use in the Turkish Copyright Law.

The fundamental basis of unlicensed software in Turkish law

The main framework for the protection of computer programs in Turkish law is the Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works. Article 1/B of the law, titled "Definitions," defines a computer program as a sequence of commands designed to enable a computer system to perform a specific operation or task, and the preparatory work that facilitates the formation and development of this sequence. Article 2 of the law includes computer programs and preparatory designs, provided they lead to a program result, among scientific and literary works. The same article also states that the ideas and principles forming the basis of any element of a computer program are not considered works. This distinction is crucial: what is protected is not merely an abstract idea, but the legally protectable form of expression of the program.

Article 18 of the Turkish Copyright Law (FSEK) stipulates that the right to exercise intellectual property rights belongs exclusively to the author. Articles 22 (reproduction right), 23 (distribution right), and 25 (public transmission right via means of signal, sound, and/or image transmission) are all included among the intellectual property rights of the author. Particularly important under Article 22 is the explicit inclusion of actions such as the installation, viewing, operation, transmission, and storage of computer programs within the scope of reproduction rights. Therefore, the use of unlicensed software often constitutes not only a breach of contract but also a direct interference with intellectual property rights.

What situations may be considered a license violation?

Using unlicensed software is not simply about "installing pirated software." In practice, the following situations frequently give rise to infringement disputes: installing a single-user license on multiple computers, using an OEM license independently of the hardware it is connected to, continuously using a trial version for business purposes, using educational licenses in commercial projects, keeping the program active after the subscription period has expired, sharing a license purchased for an organization among group companies, and circumventing technical protections. This is because the boundaries between legally acquiring and legally using the program are not the same; legitimate use must remain within the scope granted by the license document. This conclusion arises from the scope of the exclusive reproduction, distribution, and transmission rights belonging to the copyright holder.

The risk is even more severe, especially with regard to solutions that circumvent technical protection. Article 72 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), amended by Law No. 7346 dated December 25, 2021, stipulates that the manufacture, import, distribution, sale, rental, commercial possession, and provision of advertising, marketing, design, or application services for products and tools aimed at rendering ineffective effective technological measures controlling the use of works, performances, phonograms, productions, and broadcasts, are punishable by imprisonment from six months to two years. This regulation is extremely important for cracks, bypasses, license-breaking tools, and commercial solutions aimed at circumventing access restrictions.

What are the limits of lawful use?

The Turkish Copyright Law (FSEK) grants certain limited freedoms regarding legally acquired computer programs. According to Article 38, unless there are specific provisions in the contract, the reproduction and processing of a computer program are permitted to the extent necessary for its intended use. The same article stipulates that a person who has legally acquired the program cannot be prevented by contract from installing, running, and correcting errors; nor can they be prevented by contract from making a backup copy for as long as it is necessary for use. Furthermore, observing, examining, and testing the program's operation, as well as necessary technical operations to ensure interim functionality under certain conditions, are also permitted within certain limits.

However, the critical point often overlooked here is that these freedoms apply only who legally acquired and only to the extent necessary . Therefore, the protective framework in Article 38 does not provide a defense for software installed without a valid license, cracked, illegally reproduced, or exceeding the license scope. In other words, exceptions for backup, bug fixes, or interim functionality cannot be used to legitimize unlicensed use. These are narrow exceptions granted to legitimate users; they do not constitute a general amnesty for piracy.

Why is the risk greater for companies?

The use of unlicensed software in companies has far more serious consequences than in individual use. The primary reason for this is the broader scope of the infringement. As the number of users, devices, branches, remote access points, and server infrastructure increases, the unauthorized reproduction or exceeding the license scope can also technically expand. Since the intellectual property rights regime of the Turkish Copyright Law broadly protects the rights of reproduction, distribution, and public transmission, each additional installation and each unauthorized access in corporate use can increase the quantity of the infringement. Therefore, a seemingly small licensing loophole can appear as a high-volume copyright infringement during an audit. This is a direct practical consequence of applying the exclusive intellectual property rights regulations in the law to the corporate scale.

The second reason is that in companies, responsibility often cannot be reduced solely to the personnel who installed the program. In practice, failure to conduct license checks, maintain inventory, control systems installed by external IT companies, mismatch purchase documents with active installations, and leaving access open for former users are considered corporate compliance vulnerabilities. When a violation claim arises, the rights holder often wants to examine not just a single device, but the entire infrastructure. This creates operational and reputational risks for companies, as well as financial risks. The fact that exclusive intellectual property rights belong to the copyright holder and that circumventing technological measures is also subject to sanctions makes corporate structures more vulnerable than individual users.

Triple price claim and compensation aspect

One of the most notable issues in unlicensed software disputes is the claim for "triple compensation." In legal doctrine and judicial practice concerning Article 68 of the Turkish Copyright Law (FSEK), the right of the rights holder to claim up to three times the hypothetical contract price or market value in case of infringement of their financial rights is considered a special protection mechanism. Current literature records on Lexpera also indicate that the "triple compensation" provision, as expressed in Article 68/1 of the FSEK, requires an explicit request, and that factors such as the nature of the specific case, the type of infringed right, geographical scope, duration of the infringement, and the means used are taken into account in determining the hypothetical compensation. Furthermore, legal doctrine and Supreme Court assessments emphasize that the use of this option granted to the rights holder belongs to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the economic risk in unlicensed software files is not limited to the number of missing licenses. The rights holder may not be satisfied with a simple calculation such as "I would normally sell this many licenses"; they may demand much higher amounts based on the duration of the infringement, user volume, commercial benefit, scale of the business, the version used, and the market value of the software. Especially in products with high commercial value such as CAD, accounting, ERP, project management, design, database, and server licenses, the price dispute can reach serious proportions. At this point, expert examination, interpretation of the license agreement, and determination of actual use become decisive. The practice of charging triple the amount under Article 68 of the Turkish Copyright Law is precisely for this reason a deterrent.

Is there criminal liability?

Yes, using unlicensed software can, in some cases, carry the risk of criminal prosecution. Under the penal provisions of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), actions such as processing, reproducing, distributing, publicly transmitting, or publishing a work without the permission of the copyright holder may result in imprisonment and fines, depending on the specific circumstances of the case. Legal practice articles and current legal assessments also indicate that Article 71 of the FSEK prescribes criminal sanctions for acts constituting infringement of financial and moral rights; and that the unauthorized processing, reproduction, modification, distribution, or storage of unlicensed software can raise the issue of criminal liability.

In addition, as mentioned above, Article 72 of the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works is no longer limited solely to the classic area of ​​"cracking protective software." Following Law No. 7346, products, tools, and services aimed at rendering ineffective the effective technological measures provided by access control, encryption, and duplication control mechanisms are also directly subject to sanctions. Therefore, in the case of unlicensed software files, not only the unauthorized use of the original software but also the cracking tools and commercial services that enable that use are evaluated separately. This distinction is particularly important for third-party IT companies that perform mass installations in corporate networks.

Evidence collection, computer searches, and digital examination

One of the most sensitive aspects of unlicensed software disputes is evidence. This is because infringement is often proven not through physical objects, but through digital installations, user logs, license keys, network access records, subscription history, and device inventory. In cases that reach the level of criminal investigation, Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure comes into play. According to this article, searching and copying computers, computer programs, and files requires strong grounds for suspicion based on concrete evidence and the impossibility of obtaining evidence by any other means; while seizure is possible if the password cannot be decrypted or the process would take a long time, the devices must be returned without delay after the necessary copies are made. Furthermore, backing up the data in the system and providing a copy to the relevant party are also among the legal safeguards.

The Constitutional Court's decisions have also emphasized that Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a special and secure regime for digital evidence. The Court stated that whether the seizure of computers and telephones was implemented in accordance with the legal requirements must be evaluated separately; and that the compensation remedy under Article 141 of Law No. 5271 offers an effective recourse for claims of unlawful seizure. This line of jurisprudence reminds both law enforcement and rights holders of the limits of the evidence gathering process in investigations into unlicensed software. In other words, digital examination can be conducted; however, this examination is not unlimited and without guarantees.

What should be done if a warning is received or an inspection begins?

The biggest mistake made when receiving a warning notice, audit request, or settlement offer regarding unlicensed software is panicking and trying to delete programs from devices, erase past records, or clean up internal correspondence. Such actions do not eliminate past violations; on the contrary, they can create suspicion of evidence tampering. The correct approach is to first objectively determine the current situation. Which program is installed on which device, which version is active, which license documents are available, what is the number of users, are the subscriptions up-to-date, what was installed by the external IT company, who has cloud access enabled; all of these should be examined simultaneously. This approach is based on the fact that the most sound defense is based on regular record-keeping and controlled action, considering the scope of financial rights in the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works and the digital evidence regime stipulated in Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Depending on the specific case, sometimes quickly closing the licensing loophole and reaching a commercial settlement may be more advantageous than a lengthy litigation. Other times, the rights holder's claim may have been interpreted too broadly, the number of users exaggerated, or the scope of the licensing model misinterpreted. Therefore, there is no standard answer. However, in every case, the contract texts, invoices and purchase records, user logs, and installation inventory must be evaluated together. Legal defense against unlicensed software files often proceeds in conjunction with a technical review.

How can companies be protected?

For companies, the most effective approach is not to defend themselves after a crisis, but to establish a license compliance system before a crisis occurs. This requires creating an up-to-date software inventory for all devices and servers; matching each program with its license type, number of users, installation date, renewal period, and purchase document. Installations carried out by external IT companies should also be audited; it should be checked whether trial versions, training versions, and personal use licenses are being used in commercial activities. Establishing internal company policies regarding home-office devices and cloud access is particularly important in remote work arrangements. These measures are no longer a preference but a necessity, given the exclusive nature of financial rights under the Turkish Copyright Law and the penalties for circumventing technological measures.

Conclusion

The use of unlicensed software in Turkish law is not merely a technical lack of licensing; it is a multi-layered legal problem that can directly trigger copyright infringement, risks of damages, triple compensation claims, criminal investigations, and digital evidence processes. Computer programs are protected as works under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works; financial rights belong to the author; even the installation, execution, and storage of the program can be evaluated within the scope of reproduction rights. While Article 38 grants some limited freedoms of use for legally acquired software, these exceptions do not legitimize unlicensed use. Moreover, the current legal system imposes sanctions not only on unauthorized use but also on products and services that render technological safeguards ineffective.

Therefore, the correct approach, especially for companies, is not the "we'll get a license later if a problem arises" mentality, but rather an established license compliance policy from the outset, regular inventory, contract audits, and obtaining expert legal support when necessary. Unlicensed software is often thought to go unnoticed; however, when detected, the financial and criminal consequences can be far more severe than the initial savings. Legally, the safest approach is to link software use to documentation, license scope, and internal audit mechanisms from the beginning.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is using unlicensed software a crime in all cases?

Not every case automatically leads to the same outcome; however, actions such as processing, reproduction, distribution, or public transmission without the permission of the rights holder may give rise to criminal risk under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), depending on the nature of the specific case. Furthermore, Article 72 of the FSEK also prescribes imprisonment for products and services that circumvent technological safeguards.

Does purchasing a license later erase past violations?

As a rule, no. Obtaining a license later provides legal compliance for the future; however, it does not automatically eliminate the risk of compensation or penalties arising from past unauthorized use. Therefore, the detection and defense process is evaluated separately based on past usage data.

If a company employee founded the company, is the responsibility solely on the employee?

In practice, the focus is not only on the person who installed the program, but also on how and to what extent the software is used within the corporate infrastructure. Unauthorized installations at the company level can broaden the scope of interference with financial rights and raise the issue of corporate responsibility.

Is it forbidden to make a backup copy?

No. Anyone who legally obtains and has the right to use the program may make one backup copy for as long as it is necessary for use; this right cannot be prevented by contract. However, this freedom does not apply to unlicensed use.

Can computers be confiscated?

Within the scope of the investigation, if the conditions of Article 134 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are met, it is possible to search, copy, and, if necessary, seize computers and computer programs. However, this requires strong suspicion based on concrete evidence and the impossibility of obtaining evidence by other means; backing up the data and providing a copy to the relevant party are also among the legal guarantees.