Introduction Turkey exported TV content well worth $350 million in 2017, becoming the second-largest exporter of TV drama globally after the USA, and is predicted to sell about $1 billion worth of TV content material with the aid of 2023 with leisure codecs. (1) However, the query of whether TV formats experience copyright protection beneath the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works 5846 (the Copyright Act) has long been debated in Turkey. TV formats are certainly an essential source of sales inside the leisure enterprise. In reality, many TV announcements are composed of shows based totally on unique codecs, some of which are imported and adapted to the importing user’s way of life. In this context, it’s far vital to determine the prison fame of TV formats in phrases of the boundaries of legal safety granted to them.
IP protection beneath Copyright Act Although TV codecs undoubtedly revel in copyright safety,(2) so as for highbrow property to be covered as a piece of work according to the Copyright Act, it needs to undergo the characteristics of its author and be categorized beneath one of the restrained quantity of work sorts detailed under the regulation. According to Article 1/B of the Copyright Act, a ‘work’ “means any highbrow or creative product bearing the character of its creator, that is deemed as systematic and literary or musical paintings or paintings of satisfactory arts or cinematographic paintings.” Article 1/B affords copyright protection to any work that falls within the categories listed above. However, the same article also requires that such paintings bear their authors’
Characteristics so that you can experience copyright protection. Under Article 9(2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, “copyright safety shall extend to expressions and no longer to ideas, tactics, techniques of operation or mathematical standards as such.” The key thing is that what’s protected need to be perceptible and understandable. (3) Whether TV formats are afforded copyright safety relies upon the precise layout. (4) Some criminal authors define a ‘format’ as “a general description”(5) or a framework plan or draft bearing the writer’s characteristics. However, other authors propose that a format constitutes the spine of a TV program (e.g., an in-depth draft define that specifies its shape, content material, concern, capturing method, and set design).
(6) According to other reviews, TV formats have to be blanketed through unfair competition provisions below the Code of Commerce in preference to copyright regulation because they contain the switch of abstract thoughts. (7) However, a contrasting opinion specifies that TV codecs are essentially intellectual merchandise with unchanging characteristic factors including names, content, shape, plot, set layout, and hosts. In contrast, content material consists of elements that could change continuously. (eight) Joris Van Manen has defined TV codecs as just like bread crusts – the crust stays the same, but the content may additionally trade relying on the program on which the format is based. (nine) The feature elements of TV formats are the fixed elements that live the equal, including the call of the display, target audience, period, shape, content material, and set design. (10) Arguably, a TV program’s shape serves to determine whether it bears the characteristics of its creator (i.e., a program’s composition, content material, and host).
For the IP rights of such a creative product to be blanketed, it ought to undergo the characteristics of its creator. There are tons of debate regarding how and to what extent a TV format can bear stated characteristics. For example, in keeping with some felony authors, a format ought to be specific(eleven) a good way to be considered a ‘paintings’ below Article 1/B of the Copyright Act, even if it’s miles the result of intellectual creativity and attempt. An elaborated text that fulfills these situations might be blanketed as a systematic and literary work if it bears the characteristics of its creator. (12) Case law In a 2008 selection, the 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals examined whether TV formats may be taken into consideration much like cinematographic works and dominated that TV codecs must be protected inside the scope of the Copyright Act, concerning previous Supreme Court of Appeals decisions. (13) Further, in a 2016 judgment, the Supreme Court of
Appeals determined as follows: A TV format elaborated on a text that explains almost every element inclusive of the positions of the host and the contestant all through the show, the particular wording to be used while announcing commercial breaks, camera lighting fixtures, and shooting techniques will be covered as scientific and literary paintings inside the meaning of Article 2 of Copyright Act. In any other dispute from 2016, the Supreme Court stated that “a layout which does not encompass a detailed description shall now not enjoy copyright safety since it does now not reflect the characteristics of its author,” which implies that codecs which endure characteristics and cross past abstract factors of ideas are included as copyrighted work. (14) Further, a current Supreme Court of Appeals judgment indicated that TV formats that bear no distinct traits aren’t added, restating the characteristics rule for TV codecs. (15) Comment In the view of criminal doctrine and Supreme Court of Appeals case law, TV formats experience protection under the Copyright Act provided that they undergo the traits of their authors and are mainly specific.