SOMUT OLMAYAN KÜLTÜREL MİRAS İLE FİKRİ MÜLKİYET ARASINDAKİ İLİŞKİ: TÜRKÜ DERLEMECİLERİ VE KAYIT KİŞİLERİ ÖZELİNDE BİR DEĞERLENDİRME

Year 2026, Volume: 84 Issue: 1, 515 - 537, 27.02.2026

Özge Özsoy

https://doi.org/10.30915/abd.1844566

https://izlik.org/JA85YN36FT

Abstract

Somut olmayan kültürel mirasın temel özellikleri, gayri maddî olması, ülkesellik ilkesine tâbi olması ve nesilden nesile aktarılabilmeleridir. Somut olmayan kültürel miras örnekleri arasında müzik, dans, tasarımlar, performanslar, törenler, mimari formlar, el sanatları ve anlatılar yer alabilir. Somut olmayan kültürel mirası düzenleyen uluslararası sözleşme, Türkiye’nin de tarafı bulunduğu 2003 tarihli Somut Olmayan Kültürel Mirasın Korunması Sözleşmesi’dir. Türkiye’nin somut olmayan kültürel miras öğelerinden biri de Aşıklık Geleneği’dir. Bu nedenle, türkü derlemecilerinin Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu bağlamında nasıl korunacağı önem arz etmektedir. Fikri mülkiyet ile somut olmayan kültürel miras arasındaki ilişkide en önemli sorunsal, fikri mülkiyet hukuku araçlarının somut olmayan kültürel mirasa uygulanabilir olup olmadığıdır.

Keywords

Kültürel miras , Fikri mülkiyet , Aşıklık Geleneği , Türkü Derlemecileri , İcracı Sanatçı

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: AN EVALUATION SPECIFIC TO TURKISH FOLK SONG COLLECTORS AND RECORDING PEOPLE

https://izlik.org/JA85YN36FT

Abstract

The fundamental characteristics of intangible cultural heritage are that it is absolute, subject to the principle of territoriality, and can be transmitted from generation to generation. Examples of intangible cultural heritage include music, dance, designs, performances, ceremonies, architectural forms, crafts, and narratives. The international convention regulating intangible cultural heritage is the 2003 Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, to which Turkey is also a party. One of Turkey's elements of intangible cultural heritage is the Minstrelsy Tradition. Therefore, it is important to consider how folk song collectors are protected within the context of the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works. The most significant issue in the relationship between intellectual property and intangible cultural heritage is whether intellectual property law tools can be applied to intangible cultural heritage.

Keywords

Cultural heritage , Intellectual property , Minstrelsy Tradition , Folk Song Collectors , Performing Artist

References

• Antons C and Logan W, ‘Intellectual and Cultural Property and the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage’ in Christoph Antons and William Logan (eds) Intellectual Property, Cultural Property and Intangible Cultural Heritage (Routledge 2018) 1
• Arbek Ö, Fikir ve Sanat Eserlerine İlişkin Lisans Sözleşmesi (Yetkin Yayınları 2005)
• Arslanlı H, Fikri Hukuk Dersleri II- Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri (İstanbul Üniversitesi 1954)
• Ayiter N, Hukukta Fikir ve Sanat Ürünleri (2. Baskı, S Yayınları 1981)
• Beşiroğlu A, Düşünce Ürünleri Üzerinde Haklar-Fikir Hukuku (3rd edn, APB 2004)
• Boulware, Pyle and Turner, ‘Symposium: Intellectual Property: An Overview of Intellectual Property Rights Abroad’, (1994) 14 Hous. J. Int’l L. 441, reprinted in Anthony D’Amato and Doris Estelle Long (eds.), International Intellectual Property Anthology (1996), 20
• Burri M, ‘Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property’ in Francesco Francioni, Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford 2020) 551
• Çolak U, ‘Türkülerde İşleme Eser Sahipliği ve Sui Generis Koruma Modeli Önerisi’, (2008) FMR 8(2) 95 Desantes M, ‘Protecting Intangible Cultural Heritage Through Intellectual Property – A Challenge for IP Classic Tools?’ in Jean-Michel Bruguiere and Christophe Geiger (eds), Penser le droit de la pensée: Mélanges en l’honneur de Michel Vivant (Dalloz 2020) 559
• Dinwoodie G B, ‘Developing a Private International Intellectual Property Law: the Demise of Territoriality’, (2009) William & Mary L. Rev. 711
• Dum-Tragut J, ‘Border and Cultural heritage - Approaches to a complex topic’, (2024) 21(2) History and Culture 176
• Erdil E, Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu Şerhi (3rd edn, Vedat Kitapçılık, 2009)
• Francioni F and Vrdoljak A F, ‘Introduction’ in Francesco Francioni and Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford 2020) 120
• Frankel S, ‘TK and Innovation as a Global Concern’ in Gervais, International Intellectual Property: A Handbook of Contemporary Research (Edward Elgar 2015) 217
• Frankel S, ‘Using Intellectual Property Rules to Support Self-determination Goals of Indigenous Peoples’ in Christophe Geiger (ed), Research Handbook on Human Rights and Intellectual Property (Edward Elgar 2015) 785
• Hirsch E E, Hukuki Bakımdan Fikrî Sây (Fikrî Haklar), C. II (İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları 1943)
• Karaca B G, ‘Fikri Hak, Telif Hakkı ve Fikri Mülkiyet Kavramları Üzerine Bir İnceleme’, (2025) 11(1) TFM 151
• Kılıçoğlu A M, Sınai Haklarla Karşılaştırmalı Fikri Haklar (7. Baskı, Turhan Kitabevi 2021)
• Lixinski L, ‘Intellectual Property and Intangible Heritage’, in Lucas Lixinski (ed) Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2013) 175
• Munzer S R and Raustiala K, ‘The Uneasy Case for Intellectual Property Rights in Traditional Knowledge’ (2009) 27 Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal 37
• Nafziger J A R and Kirkwood Paterson Robert, ‘Cultural Heritage Law’ in James A.R. Nafziger and Robert Kirkwood Paterson (eds), Handbook on the Law of Cultural Heritage and International Trade (Edward Elgar 2014) 1
• New Zealand Intellectual Property Office, Protecting Intellectual Property with a Māori Cultural Element: User Guide (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, 2016),www.iponz.govt.nz/assets/pdf/maori-ip/protecting-ip-with-a-maori-cultural-element.pdf
• Oğuz, A, ‘Fikri Mülkiyet Hakları ve Geleneksel (Yerel) Bilgi ve Folklorun Hukuki Korunması’, (2009) FMR 9(3) 9.
• Öztan F, ‘Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Hukukunda İşlenme Eserler’ in Yaşar Karayalçın (ed) Prof. Dr. Ali Bozer’e Armağan (Banka ve Ticaret Hukuku Entitüsü 1998) 221
• Öztürk İ, ‘Türk Halk Müziği Derleyiciliğinin Dünü – Bugünü, Sorunlar – Öneriler’ in Kadir Pürlü (ed) Ölümünün 50. Yılında Muzaffer Sarısözen Sempozyumu (EsForm 2015) 159
• Pager S A, ‘Traditional Knowledge Rights and Wrongs’ (2016) 20 Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 82
• Peukert A, ‘Territoriality and Extraterritoriality in Intellectual Property Law’, in G. Handl – J. Zekoll (eds), Beyond Territoriality: Transnational Legal Authority in An Age of Globalization (2011) 194
• Scovazzi T ‘Le concept d’espace dans trois conventions unesco sur la protection du patrimonie culturel” (2009) 26 L’Observateur des Nations Unies 7.
• Stamatoudi I, ‘The Notions of Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage: Overlaps and Clashes’ in Irini Stamatoudi (ed), Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Cultural Heritage (Edward Elgar 2022) 8
• Torremans P, ‘Copyright territoriality in a borderless online environment’, in J. Axhamn (ed), Copyright in a borderless environment, (Norstedts Juridik 2012), 23
• Ubertazzi B, ‘Territorial and Universal Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage from Misappropriation’ (2010) 8 New Zealand Yearbook of International Law 69
• Vrdoljak A F and Meskell L, ‘Intellectual Cooperation Organisation, Unesco, And The Culture Conventions’ in Francesco Francioni, Ana Filipa Vrdoljak (eds), Oxford Handbook of International Cultural Heritage Law (Oxford 2020) 128.