Home About Us Services Awards Team Insights Career Contact Us TÜRKÇEENGLISH Devin Patent — Istanbul
Copyright/Insights

Playing Music from a Subscription App on Business Premises and Criminal Liability: The Decision of the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation of 5 May 2026

İşyerinde Abonelikli Müzik Uygulamasından Yayın ve Ceza Sorumluluğu: Yargıtay 7. Ceza Dairesinin 05.05.2026 Tarihli Kararı
Authors
Uğurcan TekinUğurcan Tekin
Published15 October 2026
Reading time21 min
PDF
← All Insights
CategoryCopyright
Published15 October 2026
Authors
Uğurcan TekinPartner
In this article
CopyrightPublic performanceSubscription music appsLIAW Article 71
Contents01The Facts and the Proceedings02The Chamber's Reasoning03Assessment of the Decision04Consequences for Businesses05Conclusion
Decisions citedYargıtay 7. CD, 05.05.2026, E. 2025/4040, K. 2026/5401
SummaryÖzet

This article examines the decision of the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation dated 5 May 2026 (Docket No. 2025/4040, Decision No. 2026/5401), which held that playing music in a café through a music app paid for by a monthly subscription constitutes the offence set out in Article 71(1) of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (the “LIAW”). The Chamber rejected the operator's defence that paying the subscription fee also covered the copyright royalties, stated that the case law on the absence of intent in radio and television broadcasts cannot be applied to subscription apps, and upheld the conviction by majority. The dissenting opinion concerns the manner in which the evidence was obtained, not the merits. The article discusses the reasoning of the decision, the line of case law on which it relies and its consequences for businesses.

Key takeaway · Kilit sonuç

The decisive criterion in the decision is the operator's ability to see, choose and change the track to be played. Paying the subscription fee does not replace the permission required for public performance on premises open to the public.

Who sets the playlist: Court of Cassation decisions by music sourceFigure 1
Radio broadcastGeneral Assembly 28.01.2020 · the broadcaster sets the playlist · no intent found on the facts
Files stored on a computer7th CC 21.10.2021 · the business sets the playlist · elements of the offence established
Video-sharing platform (YouTube)7th CC 29.11.2021 · the business sets the playlist · intent established (TCC Art. 21)
Subscription music app · decision examined7th CC 05.05.2026 · the business sets the playlist · radio case law not applied, conviction upheld
Criterion: ability to see, choose and change the next trackwhat counts is control over the flow of the broadcast, not the type of source

In businesses such as cafés, restaurants, shops and gyms, music is mostly played through a music app installed on a phone or tablet. Many of these apps are used against a monthly subscription fee, and operators may understand payment of that fee to mean that the music use itself has also been paid for. In our opinion, the statutory system leads to a different result. An individual subscription, as a rule, allows the subscriber to listen to music personally and does not include permission to play it to customers on business premises.

Article 24 of the LIAW grants the author the exclusive right to exploit a work by performance, such as reciting, playing, acting or showing it in public places, either directly or by means of devices transmitting signs, sounds or images. Under paragraph 3 of the same article, where the author is a member of a collective management organisation, the performance right cannot be used by other natural or legal persons without the written permission of that organisation, within the scope of the authority stated in the author's mandate. Article 80 of the Law grants related rights to performers, phonogram producers, film producers and radio and television organisations. The use of music on premises open to the public is further regulated in Article 41.

Statutory provisionKanundaki düzenleme

Article 41(1) of the LIAW reads as follows: “Premises open to the public, whether entry is paid or free, shall obtain permission from right holders or from the collective management organisations of which they are members by concluding a contract in accordance with Article 52 concerning the use and/or transmission of works, performances, phonograms, productions and broadcasts, and shall make the economic right payments set out in the contracts in accordance with this article.”

Use without this permission has two separate consequences. On the civil side, under Article 68 of the LIAW the right holder may claim up to three times the fee it could have requested had a contract been concluded, or up to three times the market value. On the criminal side, Article 71(1)(1) of the LIAW provides for imprisonment of one to five years or a judicial fine for any person who, without the written permission of the right holders, performs a work, performance, phonogram or production or communicates it to the public by any means transmitting signs, sounds or images. Under Article 75 of the LIAW, investigation and prosecution of this offence depend on a complaint.

01
The Facts and the ProceedingsOlay ve Yargılama Süreci

The case began with an application by counsel for two collective management organisations to the Muğla Chief Public Prosecutor's Office. The complaint alleged that performances, phonograms and productions in the organisations' repertoire were being communicated to the public in a café without permission. On the instructions of the Prosecutor's Office, police officers, counsel for the complainant and an expert carried out an inspection at the premises. According to the inspection, music was being played through an app installed on a tablet at the business, with the tablet connected to a Bluetooth amplifier. Using a software program, it was established that two different works were played at 15:52 and 15:56 in the indoor area used by customers.

DateAuthorityStep and outcome
23.12.2022Muğla Chief Public Prosecutor's OfficeComplaint filed by counsel for two collective management organisations
28.02.2023Police, complainant's counsel, expertInspection at the premises; two works found to be played through the tablet and amplifier
16.06.2023ExpertReport finding that one of the works is a musical work within the meaning of LIAW Art. 3
30.10.2023MediationNo settlement reached
11.01.2024Muğla 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance (2023/673, 2024/15)Acquittal on the ground that the matter was a civil dispute
05.11.2024İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, 11th Criminal Chamber (2024/489, 2024/2010)Acquittal set aside after a hearing; 10 months' imprisonment under TCC Arts. 62(1), 53 and 58
05.05.2026Court of Cassation, 7th Criminal Chamber (2025/4040, 2026/5401)Upheld by majority
Table: Chronology of the proceedings (compiled from the decision text)

The conviction was based on the work for which a document proving ownership of rights had been submitted during the investigation. The decision text does not state whether a document was submitted for the second work. In our opinion, this shows the practical importance of the complaint requirement in Article 75 of the LIAW. Under that provision, if right holders or collective management organisations do not submit documents proving their rights to the Prosecutor's Office within the complaint period, a decision of non-prosecution is issued. In its decision of 17 October 2024 (2023/8649, 2024/9081), the 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation likewise stated that a complainant who does not submit a legally valid document of ownership within the six-month complaint period has no right to join the proceedings or to appeal the judgment.

In the decision examined, the Chamber also treated the listing of the second collective management organisation, which had not been harmed by the offence and had no right to join the proceedings, as an intervening party in the heading of the reasoned judgment as a clerical error that could be corrected by the lower court.

In his defence, the defendant stated that he paid a subscription fee of about TRY 100 per month for the app, that by paying this fee he must also have paid the royalties, and that he earned nothing from playing music. On appeal, he argued that he had no intent to commit an offence, that he had no means of knowing that playing music from an app was a criminal offence, and that Article 30(4) of Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237 (the “TCC”) should be applied to him. He also argued that a person who entered the premises posing as a customer and recorded without permission should have warned him beforehand.

02
The Chamber's ReasoningDairenin Gerekçesi
Absence of Intent in Radio and Television BroadcastsRadyo ve Televizyon Yayınında Kastın Bulunmaması

To understand the decision, the ruling of the Criminal General Assembly of the Court of Cassation (the “General Assembly”) on radio broadcasts must first be set out. In its decision of 28 January 2020 (2017/788, 2020/34), the General Assembly examined a case in which an internet radio broadcast was played to customers in a supermarket through a loudspeaker system. The General Assembly accepted that the act fulfilled the material elements of the offence but concluded that the mental element was not present.

The General Assembly's assessmentCeza Genel Kurulunun değerlendirmesi

According to the General Assembly, it cannot be accepted that “the defendant, who had neither the authority nor the means to interfere with the content of the broadcast being made by the radio organisation” acted with intent, since he “could not know that [the works] would be broadcast by the radio organisation”. The decision was unanimous.

In the same decision, the General Assembly made two further findings. First, general intent is sufficient for the offence, and the offender need not act with a specific intent such as generating income or deriving benefit. This finding shows that the defendant's argument that he earned nothing from playing music does not remove criminal liability. Second, it is not sufficient for owners of premises open to the public to obtain permission only from broadcasting organisations. Separate written permission must be obtained from the author, the performer, the phonogram producer and the broadcasting organisation. Accordingly, the finding that there was no intent in the radio broadcast removes criminal liability but does not remove the obligation to obtain permission or civil liability. In the General Assembly decision, the defendant was not punished because intent was absent on the facts of the case. In our opinion, where the operator knows or ought to know that the right holder's works will be broadcast, for example where it continues to play radio without permission despite a warning from the collective management organisation, intent may be found and criminal liability may also arise for radio broadcasts.

Distinguishing the Subscription App from RadioAbonelikli Uygulamanın Radyodan Ayrılması

In the decision examined, the Chamber stated that this case law cannot be applied to a subscription music app. The name of the app has been anonymised in the decision text.

The Chamber's reasoningDairenin gerekçesi

“There is no doubt that the app named [...] cannot be assessed in the same way as radio/television broadcasts. This is because users listening to music through the [...] app are also able to see, choose and change the next track to be played from the list and thus to control the flow of the broadcast.”

The criterion used in the reasoning is not new. In its decision of 3 June 2021 (2019/27607, 2021/6149), the 19th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation applied the same criterion to music played through YouTube on a tablet. In its decision of 29 November 2021 (2021/16989, 2021/15694), the 7th Criminal Chamber likewise stated that YouTube users are able “to see, choose and change the next track to be played from the list and thus to control the flow of the broadcast”, found that intent within the meaning of Article 21 of the TCC was present, and reversed the acquittal. In 2024 the Chamber again found lawful the reasoning of regional courts of appeal to this effect concerning YouTube broadcasts (decision of 17 October 2024, 2023/8649, 2024/9081; decision of 5 December 2024, 2023/14457, 2024/11077). In its decision of 21 October 2021 (2021/14552, 2021/14322), the 7th Criminal Chamber held that the elements of the offence were fulfilled for music played in a gym, noting that it was played from “works stored on a computer whose broadcast flow the defendant himself controlled”.

In our opinion, the distinctive feature of the decision is that this criterion was applied to a music app used under a paid subscription, and that the defence based on payment of the subscription fee had no effect on the outcome. For the Chamber, the decisive question is whether the operator was able to control the flow of the broadcast, whatever the source of the music.

Music sourceWho sets the playlistCourt of Cassation's outcomeExample decision
Radio broadcastBroadcasting organisationNo intent found on the facts; criminal liability may arise where intent existsGeneral Assembly, 28.01.2020, 2017/788, 2020/34
Files stored on a computerOperatorElements of the offence found to be fulfilled7th CC, 21.10.2021, 2021/14552, 2021/14322
YouTubeOperatorIntent found (TCC Art. 21)7th CC, 29.11.2021, 2021/16989, 2021/15694
Subscription music appOperatorRadio case law not applied; conviction upheld7th CC, 05.05.2026, 2025/4040, 2026/5401
Table: Outcome of Court of Cassation decisions by music source (7th CC: 7th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation)
The Defence of Having Paid the Subscription FeeAbonelik Ücreti Ödenmesi Savunması

The defendant's main defence was that, since he paid the subscription fee, the royalties had also been paid. The Chamber did not discuss this defence separately and merely stated that the offence was proven. The reason the defence failed can, however, be understood from the system of the LIAW.

One track, separate permissionsSubscriber's personal listening (covered by an individual subscription, as a rule)Playing music to customers (not covered by an individual subscription)
Author (lyrics, music)Permission obtained by the platform: on-demand access · LIAW Art. 25Written permission of the CMO if the author is a member · LIAW Arts. 24, 24(3), 41
Performer (performance)Permission obtained by the platform: on-demand access · LIAW Art. 80Separate written permission · LIAW Arts. 41, 80
Phonogram producer (sound recording)Permission obtained by the platform: on-demand access · LIAW Art. 80Separate written permission · LIAW Arts. 41, 80
Art. 20: economic rights are independent of one another; the use of one does not affect the others. Premises open to the public need separate written permission from each right holder (General Assembly, 2017/788, 2020/34). Schematic; platform licence agreements are not public, the finding rests on the statutory system.

Under Article 20 of the LIAW, the author's economic rights are independent of one another, and the disposal or use of one does not affect the others. Related rights are likewise regulated separately for each right holder in Article 80 of the Law. In the decision cited above, the General Assembly also accepted that each right holder's right is independent of the others and that separate written permission must be obtained for premises open to the public. In our opinion, the permission a platform obtains from right holders, as a rule, concerns making works and fixations available to subscribers at a place and time of their choosing under Articles 25 and 80 of the LIAW. A subscriber playing the music to customers on business premises is a separate use and requires separate permission under Article 41 of the LIAW. As the licence agreements between platforms and right holders are not public, this finding is made with reference to the statutory system and not to any specific agreement.

Platforms' terms of use may point in the same direction. For example, Spotify's support page states that, under its terms of use, the service is offered only for personal and non-commercial use and cannot be played publicly in business premises such as bars, restaurants, shops and schools. The terms of use of the app were not discussed in the decision examined; it is therefore not possible to make any finding regarding the terms of the app at issue.

Regional courts of appeal have addressed this issue before. In its decision of 6 June 2017 (2017/509, 2017/993), the 11th Criminal Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance acquittal, stating that the defendant's Spotify subscription was “an individual subscription and not a commercial or business subscription”, imposed a judicial fine and deferred the announcement of the judgment. In that case the first-instance court had held that the element of intent was not fulfilled because the defendant paid a fee to play music. In its decision of 26 January 2017 (2017/78, 2017/78), the 12th Criminal Chamber of the Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal reversed an acquittal given without examining whether the subscription was individual or commercial and whether it included the right to play music in places open to the public. In the case examined, the appeal review was also carried out by the 11th Criminal Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, which had issued the 2017 decision.

03
Assessment of the DecisionKararın Değerlendirilmesi
The Object of Intent and MistakeKastın Konusu ve Hata

In its decision of 28 January 2020, the General Assembly defined the mental element of the offence as the offender carrying out one of the alternative acts “knowingly and wilfully, in the knowledge that it infringes moral, economic or related rights protected under the Law”. In the decision examined, the Chamber explained why the radio case law could not be applied by reference to the operator's ability to see, choose and change the work to be played. In our opinion, this approach shows that the operator could know which work was being played. It does not, however, answer whether the operator knew that the permission required to play that work on business premises was lacking.

In our opinion, two different mistakes must be distinguished here. The operator's belief that paying the subscription fee also secured the right holders' permission is a mistake concerning the element “without written permission” in Article 71(1) of the LIAW. Where the absence of permission is accepted as an element of the statutory definition of the offence, this mistake should be assessed under Article 30(1) of the TCC. Under that provision, a person who does not know the material elements of the statutory definition of the offence at the time of the act does not act with intent; liability for negligence arising from this mistake is reserved. Unavoidability is not required for this mistake. Since the offence in Article 71 of the LIAW has no negligent form, acceptance of the mistake will result in acquittal.

Where the operator knows that permission is lacking but believes the act is not unlawful, this is a mistake as to wrongfulness under Article 30(4) of the TCC. Under that provision, a person who makes an unavoidable mistake as to whether the act constitutes a wrong is not punished. Under Article 4 of the TCC, not knowing that the act is defined as an offence in the law is not in itself an excuse.

“I paid the subscription fee”: two different mistakesThe business believed the subscription also gave permissionKnew permission was lacking but believed the act lawful
What is the mistake about?Mistake as to the element “without written permission” · TCC Art. 30(1)Mistake as to wrongfulness · TCC Art. 30(4)
UnavoidabilityNot required; there is no negligent form of the offenceWas the mistake unavoidable?
OutcomeAcquittal if the mistake is acceptedYes: not punished · No: liability remains
TCC Art. 4: ignorance of the law is not in itself an excuse. The decision upholding the conviction contains no separate assessment of the Art. 30(4) defence.
Decisive facts in the assessmentDeğerlendirmede belirleyici olgular

Level of knowledge, education, social and cultural setting (General Assembly 2022/70, 2025/24) · Reliance on a statement by a competent authority (4th CC 2023/15282, 2025/18997) · Type and terms of the subscription; any prior warning (in our opinion decisive).

In its decision of 15 January 2025 (2022/70, 2025/24), the General Assembly stated that, in determining whether a mistake was unavoidable, “the person's level of knowledge, education, and social and cultural environment” are to be taken into account. In its decision of 24 November 2025 (2023/15282, 2025/18997), the 4th Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation likewise stated that, as a rule, no fault can be attributed to an offender who made a mistake in reliance on a statement by a competent body or official authority.

In his appeal petition, the defendant expressly requested the application of Article 30(4) of the TCC. The decision upholding the conviction contains no separate assessment of this defence. A similar situation can be seen in the case underlying the 7th Criminal Chamber's decision of 5 December 2024. There, the defendant argued that he did not know that playing music via YouTube was an offence, and the Chamber found no error in the conviction. In the 2017 decision of the 11th Criminal Chamber of the İzmir Regional Court of Appeal, the defendant likewise stated that he did not know playing music was an offence, and this statement was not separately discussed in the decision.

In our opinion, even if these arguments could be rejected, the basis for rejection should be traceable from the decision texts. The defendant's level of knowledge, the type and terms of the subscription, and whether the operator had previously received a warning are decisive facts in assessing the mistake. In our opinion, payment of the subscription fee does not amount to a statement by a competent authority. On the other hand, the personal criteria listed in the General Assembly's decision of 15 January 2025 can be applied to a specific case only once these facts have been established. The reasoned judgment of the appeal court could not be examined for this article; the assessment is therefore limited to the content of the decision upholding the conviction.

The Dissent: Search and Undercover InvestigatorKarşı Oy: Arama ve Gizli Soruşturmacı

The dissent concerns whether the evidence was lawfully obtained, not whether the act constituted an offence.

Dissenting opinionKarşı oy

According to the dissent, the inspection at the premises was carried out without a search decision or written search order complying with Articles 116 and 119 of Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271 (the “CCP”). The offence in LIAW Art. 71 is not among the offences for which an undercover investigator may be assigned under Article 139(7) of the CCP. Furthermore, no examination was made of the tablet used to play the music, and it is unclear how the identification was carried out. For these reasons, relying on Article 38 of the Constitution and CCP Arts. 206(2)(a), 217(2) and 230(1), the dissent took the view that the defendant should have been acquitted.

The General Assembly's decisions on the concept of search provide guidance in assessing the dissent. In its decision of 3 December 2025 (2024/43, 2025/552), the General Assembly stated that a search is “an activity carried out to reveal what is hidden”, and that therefore “things visible to the eye or left in the open” cannot be the subject of a search. In the same decision, it held that after an observation concerning goods openly displayed in front of a business, the enclosed parts of the business cannot be searched on the officers' own initiative. In its decision of 12 June 2024 (2023/455, 2024/191), the General Assembly likewise stated that the parts of enclosed public premises that are not open to the public may be searched only by decision of a judge or, where the conditions are met, by written order of a public prosecutor.

From the customer area to the back: which steps count as a searchMüşteri alanından arka bölüme: hangi işlem arama sayılır
01Listening to music audible in the customer area and identifying it with software: in our opinion not a search (General Assembly 2024/43).
02Recording information openly visible on the tablet screen: not the subject of a search.
03Examining the contents of the tablet: subject to separate procedural rules.
04Searching parts not open to the public (kitchen, storage, office): decision of a judge or, where the conditions are met, written order of the prosecutor (General Assembly 2023/455).

In our opinion, applying these criteria, listening to music played in the indoor area used by customers and identifying it with software does not amount to a search. In its decision of 21 October 2021, the 7th Criminal Chamber likewise accepted that evidence may be recorded in any kind of report drawn up by police officers; that decision, however, does not discuss the concept of search and concerns the means of proof. As to the undercover investigator objection, the decision contains no information that police officers carried out a continuous activity while concealing their identity. The inspection was carried out on the instructions of the public prosecutor, accompanied by counsel for the complainant and an expert.

In our opinion, the dissent's third point requires separate consideration. The inspection report states that the music was played through an app installed on a tablet, but according to the dissent the tablet was not examined. Recording information openly visible on the tablet screen is not the subject of a search. By contrast, had it been necessary to examine the contents of the tablet, any step taken on the device would have been subject to separate procedural rules. The type of subscription under which the app was used and whether the operator subscribed to a commercial music service are facts of importance for the defence.

04
Consequences for Businessesİşletmeler Bakımından Sonuçlar

The decision has concrete consequences for businesses that use music on their premises. These are summarised in the table below.

SituationLegal consequenceBasis
Playing music to customers under an individual subscriptionCriminal and civil liability may ariseLIAW Arts. 41, 68, 71(1); 7th CC, 2025/4040, 2026/5401
Playing a radio broadcast on the premisesNo criminal liability found owing to absence of intent; criminal liability may arise where intent exists; the obligation to obtain permission remainsGeneral Assembly, 2017/788, 2020/34
Defence that the music was on only for staffRejected where customers were found to be present at the time of the inspection7th CC, 2023/8649, 2024/9081
Failure to submit proof of ownership within the complaint periodA decision of non-prosecution is issued; the complainant cannot join the proceedings or appeal the judgmentLIAW Art. 75; 7th CC, 2023/8649, 2024/9081
Judgment given without mediationGround for reversal7th CC, 2023/9705, 2024/3491
Works of several collective management organisations used by the same actAn increase in the penalty under TCC Art. 43(2) comes into question7th CC, 2023/9705, 2024/3491

In practice, the first point businesses should check is the use for which the music service they use is licensed. An individual subscription, as a rule, does not give permission to play music to customers on business premises. Background music services offered for commercial use should be assessed according to which right holders they cover. The contracts for such services should state clearly whether separate permission must also be obtained from right holders or collective management organisations for the rights of authors, performers and phonogram producers under Articles 24 and 80 of the LIAW. Where the author is a member of a collective management organisation, the organisation's written permission is required under Article 24(3) of the LIAW; for performers and phonogram producers, the provisions of Article 80 of the LIAW must also be taken into account.

In practiceUygulamada

The offence depends on a complaint and is subject to mediation. In its decision of 28 January 2021 (2018/621, 2021/3), the General Assembly held that the effective repentance provision in Article 71 of the LIAW cannot be applied to the performance offence, but that the offence is subject to mediation because it depends on a complaint. For the operator, the mediation stage is the stage at which agreement can be reached with right holders on a licence agreement and on a fee for past use. As to deferral of the announcement of the judgment, in its decision of 5 December 2024 the 7th Criminal Chamber found it unlawful, in a case where there was no measurable damage, to refuse deferral on the ground that “the damage had not been compensated”.

Checklist for businessesİşletmeler için kontrol listesi

Music service

  • Established whether the service is offered for individual or commercial use.
  • The terms of use reviewed for any provision on playing music on business premises.
  • The contract for a commercial background music service states which right holders are covered and whether separate permission is needed.

Permissions

  • Written permission obtained from the collective management organisation for authors (LIAW Arts. 24(3), 41, 52).
  • Separate permission obtained for performers and phonogram producers (LIAW Art. 80).
  • Where radio is played, the continuing obligation to obtain permission is taken into account; unlicensed playing is not continued after a warning from a collective management organisation.

If a complaint is filed

  • Checked whether the complainant submitted proof of ownership within the complaint period (LIAW Art. 75).
  • Checked how the inspection report was drawn up and whether the tablet was examined.
  • Agreement on a licence and a fee for past use considered at the mediation stage.
05
ConclusionSonuç
“Payment of the subscription fee does not replace the permission required for performance on premises open to the public.”

In our opinion, the decision of the 7th Criminal Chamber of 5 May 2026 ties the criterion for criminal liability for playing music on business premises to the operator's ability to control the flow of the broadcast, whatever the source of the music. The Chamber did not apply the General Assembly decision on the absence of intent in radio broadcasts to a subscription music app, and reached this result in line with decisions applying the same criterion to YouTube and to files stored on a computer. The reason no penalty was imposed for the radio broadcast was likewise the absence of intent; where intent exists, criminal liability may also arise for radio broadcasts. Payment of the subscription fee does not replace the permission required for performance on premises open to the public.

In our opinion, the decision's conclusion on the absence of permission is consistent with the LIAW's principle of the independence of economic rights and with the permission system for premises open to the public. That finding, however, concerns the unlawfulness of the act. The defendant's belief that the subscription also secured permission must be assessed separately under Article 30(1) of the TCC, and his belief that the act was not unlawful under Article 30(4) of the same article; the decision upholding the conviction contains no such assessment. In our opinion, the search objection raised in the dissent does not match the General Assembly's definition of search as regards identifying music audible in an area open to customers, while the uncertainty as to how the identification was carried out is of importance for the assessment of evidence.

In conclusion, playing music on business premises under an individual subscription may give rise to civil and criminal liability. Reducing this risk depends on reviewing the licence scope of the music service used and on obtaining the necessary permissions in writing from right holders or collective management organisations under Articles 41 and 52 of the LIAW.

Legislation and Decisions CitedAtıf Yapılan Mevzuat ve Kararlar

Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works, Arts. 3, 20, 24, 24(3), 25, 41(1), 52, 68, 71(1)(1), 75, 80 · Turkish Criminal Code No. 5237, Arts. 4, 21, 30(1), 30(4), 43(2), 53, 58, 62(1) · Code of Criminal Procedure No. 5271, Arts. 116, 119, 139(7), 206(2)(a), 217(2), 230(1) · Constitution, Art. 38 · Court of Cassation 7th Criminal Chamber, 05.05.2026, 2025/4040, 2026/5401 · Criminal General Assembly, 28.01.2020, 2017/788, 2020/34; 28.01.2021, 2018/621, 2021/3; 12.06.2024, 2023/455, 2024/191; 15.01.2025, 2022/70, 2025/24; 03.12.2025, 2024/43, 2025/552 · 19th Criminal Chamber, 03.06.2021, 2019/27607, 2021/6149 · 7th Criminal Chamber, 21.10.2021, 2021/14552, 2021/14322; 29.11.2021, 2021/16989, 2021/15694; 2023/9705, 2024/3491; 17.10.2024, 2023/8649, 2024/9081; 05.12.2024, 2023/14457, 2024/11077 · 4th Criminal Chamber, 24.11.2025, 2023/15282, 2025/18997 · İzmir Regional Court of Appeal 11th Criminal Chamber, 06.06.2017, 2017/509, 2017/993; 05.11.2024, 2024/489, 2024/2010 · Gaziantep Regional Court of Appeal 12th Criminal Chamber, 26.01.2017, 2017/78, 2017/78 · Muğla 3rd Criminal Court of First Instance, 11.01.2024, 2023/673, 2024/15

This article has been prepared for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The court decisions referred to are based on the decision texts accessible as at the date of publication; findings recorded in decision summaries are those of the relevant courts. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship and contains no undertaking as to its updating. 15 October 2026.

Full briefing noteDownload the bilingual PDF version of this article, with tables, diagrams and the checklist.
Download PDF
Uğurcan TekinPartner
Related practice areaTrademarks→

Related reading

CopyrightAuthorship of AI-Generated Content under Turkish Copyright Law27 August 2026CopyrightProtection of Unregistered Copyright Against Trademark Applications14 February 2026TrademarkAcquiescence in Trade Mark Law: Different Rules for Invalidity and Infringement5 October 2026