Yapay Zekâ Ürünlerinde Telif Hakkı: Anglo-Sakson, Kıta Avrupası ve Türk Hukuku Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Üretken yapay zekâ sistemlerinin metin, görsel, işitsel ve çoklu ortam içerikleri üretme kapasitesine ulaşması, telif hukukunun en temel konularından biri olan “telif hakkı” kavramını yeniden tartışmaya açmaktadır. İnsan merkezli yaratıcılık varsayımına dayanan klasik telif hukuku düzenlemeleri, algoritmik üretimin artmasıyla birlikte normatif bir gerilimle karşı karşıya kalmaktadır. Bu çalışma, yapay zekâ tarafından üretilen eserlerde telif hakkı sahipliğinin AngloSakson hukuk sistemi, Kıta Avrupası hukuk geleneği ve Türk hukuku (5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu) bağlamında nasıl düzenlendiğini karşılaştırmalı olarak incelemektedir. Araştırma, literatür ve hukuki metinler üzerinden normatif nitelikte gerçekleştirilmekte olup karşılaştırmalı metodoloji kullanılmaktadır. Çalışmada öncelikle eser sahipliği ve özgünlük kavramlarının tarihsel ve teorik temelleri analiz edilmekte; ardından Anglo-Sakson sistemde “authorship (eser sahipliği)” ve “originality(özgünlük)” kriterlerinin yapay zekâ bağlamındaki yorumu, ABD içtihatları ve resmi kurumsal görüşler ışığında ele alınmaktadır. Devamında Kıta Avrupası hukukunda “eser sahibinin hususiyeti” ilkesi ve Avrupa Birliği düzenleyici yaklaşımı incelenmektedir. Türk hukukunda ise Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu’nun “eseri meydana getiren kişi” kavramının yapay zekâ çıktıları bakımından uygulanabilirliği değerlendirilmekte ve karşılaştırmalı yöntemle üç farklı hukuki sisteminin konuya bakışı açısı sistematik biçimde ortaya konulmaktadır. Çalışmanın temel iddiası, mevcut hukuk sistemlerinin yapay zekâyı bağımsız bir hak süjesi olarak tanımadığı; ancak insan katkısının derecesine bağlı esnek yorum modellerinin giderek güç kazandığıdır. Bu bağlamda makale, Türkiye bakımından insan katkısının yoğunluğuna dayalı çok katmanlı bir eser sahipliği değerlendirme modeli önermektedir. Araştırma, karşılaştırmalı hukuk literatürüne Türkiye perspektifini dâhil ederek hem teorik hem de normatif katkı sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Yapay Zekâ
• Telif Hakkı
• Eser Sahipliği
• Özgünlük
• Karşılaştırmalı Yöntem

Copyright in Artificial Intelligence Products: A Comparison of Anglo-Saxon, Continental European and Turkish Law

Öz

The ability of generative artificial intelligence systems to produce text, visual, audio, and multimedia content has reopened the debate on the concept of “copyright,” one of the most fundamental issues in copyright law. Classical copyright law regulations, based on the assumption of human-centered creativity, face normative tension with the rise of algorithmic production. This study comparatively examines how copyright ownership of works produced by artificial intelligence is regulated in the Anglo-Saxon legal system, the Continental European legal tradition, and Turkish law (Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works). The research is normative in nature, based on literature and legal texts, and uses a comparative methodology. The study first analyzes the historical and theoretical foundations of the concepts of authorship and originality. It then examines the interpretation of the criteria of “authorship” and “originality” in the Anglo-Saxon system in the context of artificial intelligence, in light of US case law and official institutional opinions. Subsequently, the principle of “the specificity of the author” in Continental European law and the regulatory approach of the European Union are examined. In Turkish law, the applicability of the concept of “the person who created the work” under the Intellectual and Artistic Works Law is being evaluated in terms of artificial intelligence outputs, and the perspectives of three different legal systems on the subject are systematically presented using a comparative method. The main argument of the study is that existing legal systems do not recognize artificial intelligence as an independent subject of rights; however, flexible interpretation models based on the degree of human contribution are gaining ground. In this context, the article proposes a multi-layered work ownership assessment model based on the intensity of human contribution for Turkey. The research aims to contribute both theoretically and normatively by incorporating the Turkish perspective into comparative legal literature.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Artificial Intelligence
• Copyright
• Authorship
• Originality
• Comparative Method

Kaynakça

1. Abbott, R. (2023). The reasonable robot – Introduction: Artificial intelligence and the law. Revista Rede de Direito Digital Intelectual & Sociedade, 1(1), 17–44. https://doi.org/10.5380/rrddis.v1i1.93427
2. Al-Sharieh, S. (2025). Copyright denied for generative AI: Remarks on Thaler v. Perlmutter. Utrecht Journal of International and European Law, 40(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.644
3. Ampovska, M. (2025a). Comparative judicial treatment of AI-generated works in copyright law. Goce Delchev University Repository. Goce Delcev University.
4. Ampovska, M. (2025b). Thresholds for authorship and originality in AI-generated and AI-assisted works. Bratislava Law Review, 9(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.46282/blr.2025.9.2.1136
5. Arya, S. S., & Sharma, G. (2023). Generative AI images and Indian media industry: An overview of opportunities and challenges. Journal of Communication and Management, 2(4), 271–274. https://doi.org/10.58966/jcm2023249
6. Botha, C. F. (2023). Creativity and AI: A response to Boden. In Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications. https://doi.org/10.3233/FAIA220619
7. Cao, H., Tan, C., Gao, Z., Xu, Y., Chen, G., Heng, P., & Li, S. Z. (2024). A survey on generative diffusion models. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering, 36(7), 2814–2830. https://doi.org/10.1109/TKDE.2024.3361474
8. Chopra, P., Sony, R., & Chopra, S. (2025). Generative AI, copyright and personality rights: A comparative legal perspective. Legal Issues in the Digital Age, 6(3), 23–51. https://doi.org/10.17323/2713-2749.2025.3.23.51

9. Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, c. 48, § 9(3) (UK). (1988). Retrieved from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/9
10. Dahiya, N. (2025). AI-generated works and the dilemma of authorship: A comparative study of the EU and New Zealand copyright regimes. Journal of Advanced Research in Journalism & Mass Communication, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.24321/2395.3810.202601
11. Ding, K. (2025). A tiered framework for copyright ownership in AI-generated content. Journal of the European Academy Open University, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.71411/eaou.2025.v1i1.583
12. Eken, B. (2022). Sanat ve tasarımda bir aidiyet işareti olarak markanın fikri mülkiyet kavramına etkisi: Dijitalleşen sanat ve tasarımda eser haklarına dair bir inceleme. IBAD Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 13, 551–568. https://doi.org/10.21733/ibad.1203765
13. Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu, Kanun No. 5846, Resmî Gazete Sayı: 7981 (13 Aralık 1951). https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.3.5846.pdf
14. Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its nature, scope, limits, and consequences. Minds and Machines, 30(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1
15. Gaffar, H., & Albarashdi, S. H. (2024). Copyright protection for AI-generated works: Exploring originality and ownership in a digital landscape. Asian Journal of International Law, 15(1), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2044251323000735
16. Ginsburg, J. C. (2014). The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law. DePaul Law Review, 52(4), 1063–1092.
17. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2024). What generative AI means for the media industries, and why it matters to study the collective consequences for advertising, journalism, and public relations. Emerging Media, 2(3), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/27523543241289239
18. Karaca, U., & Karataş, E. (2022). Yapay zeka tarafından meydana getirilen fikri ürünlerin 5846 sayılı Fikir ve Sanat Eserleri Kanunu'na göre korunması. Maltepe Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi, (1), 17–50.
19. Li, Y. (2025). The human authorship requirement in AI-generated works: A comparative analysis of copyright protection frameworks. Journal of Law and Governance, 1(1), 21–27. https://doi.org/10.64229/671z9c57
20. Nawar, T. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and authorship gaps. American Philosophical Quarterly, 61(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.5406/21521123.61.4.05
21. Neubauer, A., Wynn, M., & Bown, R. (2026). AI, authorship, copyright, and human originality. Encyclopedia, 6(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/encyclopedia6010009
22. Özdal, M. A. (2024). Copyright and ownership in artworks produced with artificial intelligence. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Güzel Sanatlar Fakültesi Dergisi, 26(49), 89–104.
23. Ramos, F. (2025). Reconceptualizing human authorship in the age of generative AI: A normative framework for copyright thresholds. Laws, 14(6), 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws14060084
24. Salmi, M. (2025). Is there room for AI authorship – Navigating the legal status and copyright protection in the European Union (Master’s thesis, University of Turku). UTUPub. https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi-fe2025090193680
25. Sattar, H. A., Ashraf, A., & Hassan, Z. (2024). Generative artificial intelligence and the media industries: Collective consequences for journalism, advertising, and public relations. Journal of Computational Informatics & Business, 2(2), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.65606/22/2024/53
26. Senftleben, M., & Buijtelaar, L. (2020). Robot creativity: An incentive-based neighboring rights approach. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3707741
27. U.S. Copyright Office. (2023, March 16). Copyright registration guidance: Works containing material generated by artificial intelligence. Federal Register, 88(51), 16190–16191. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/03/16/2023-05321/copyright-registration-guidance-works-containing-material-generated-by-artificial-intelligence
28. Vig, S. (2024). Intersection of generative artificial intelligence and copyright: An Indian perspective. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management, 17(1), 118–133. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-08-2023-0145
29. Wyczik, J., & Wieczerzak, R. (2024). Rethinking copyright: The art of ownership in AI outputs. Eastern European Journal of Transnational Relations, 8(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.15290/eejtr.2024.08.01.04
30. Xu, Z., Xu, Z., Xu, Z., & Xu, Z. (2025). Tiered copyrightability for generative artificial intelligence: An empirical analysis of China and the United States judicial practices. AI Magazine, 46(3). https://doi.org/10.1002/aaai.70018
31. Yücel, O. Ü. (2024). Yapay zekânın sanat emeğine olası etkisi. Mülkiye Dergisi, Kültür Özel Sayısı, 35–75.
32. Zdravkova, K. (2025). Who holds the copyright for AI-assisted and AI-generated contents? Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 12(1), 144–161. https://doi.org/10.21747/21833745/lanlaw12_1a7
33. Zhuk, A. (2023). Navigating the legal landscape of AI copyright: A comparative analysis of EU, US, and Chinese approaches. AI and Ethics, 4(4), 1299–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43681-023-00299-0