Turkey exported TV content material worth $350 million in 2017, turning into the second biggest exporter of TV drama globally after America, and is predicted to promote about $1 billion worth of TV content utilizing 2023, including leisure codecs. (1) However, the question of whether TV formats enjoy copyright protection under the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works 5846 (the Copyright Act) has long been debated in Turkey.
TV codecs are certainly an important source of sales inside the leisure industry. In reality, many TV proclaims are composed of indicates based on precise formats, some of which might be imported and adapted to the uploading usa’s lifestyle. In this context, it’s miles important to determine the prison fame of TV formats in phrases of the limits of legal protection granted to them.
IP safety below Copyright Act
Although TV formats absolutely enjoy copyright protection,(2) so as for highbrow property to be protected as a bit of work by the Copyright Act, it has to endure the characteristics of its creator and be categorized underneath one of the restrained number of labor sorts particular under the law. According to Article 1/B of the Copyright Act, a ‘paintings’ “way any intellectual or inventive product bearing the feature of its writer, which is deemed as systematic and literary or musical paintings or paintings of quality arts or cinematographic paintings”.
Article 1/B presents copyright protection to any work that falls within the classes listed above. However, the equal article additionally requires that such paintings bear their authors’ characteristics so that they will experience copyright protection. Under Article 9(2) of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, “copyright protection shall increase to expressions and now not to ideas, techniques, strategies of operation or mathematical standards as such.” The key aspect is that what is included must be perceptible and understandable. (3)
Whether TV codecs are afforded copyright safety depends on the unique layout. (four) Some prison authors outline a ‘format’ as “a preferred description”(five) or a framework plan or draft bearing the writer’s characteristics. However, different authors propose that a format constitutes the spine of a TV program (e.g., a detailed draft define that specifies its shape, content, situation, taking pictures method, and set layout). (6)
According to different reviews, TV codecs ought to be protected by unfair opposition provisions underneath the Code of Commerce instead of using copyright law. They involve the transfer of the summary mind. (7) However, a contrasting opinion specifies that TV formats are essentially intellectual merchandise that has unchanging function elements such as names, content, shape, plot, set layout, and hosts. In contrast, content includes elements that can alternate continuously. (eight)
Joris Van Manen has defined TV formats as just like bread crusts – the crust remains identical. However, the content material might also change depending on the program on which the format is based totally. (9) The function elements of TV codecs are the constant elements that stay equal, including the call of the display, audience, length, shape, content, and set layout. (10) Arguably, a TV program’s shape serves to determine whether or not it bears the characteristics of its author (i.e., a program’s composition, content material, and host).
For the IP rights of such a creative product to be covered, it ought to endure the traits of its writer. There are tons of debate regarding how and to what volume a TV layout can bear said characteristics. For example, according to some criminal authors, a format should be unique(11) as a way to be taken into consideration a ‘work’ under Article 1/B of the Copyright Act, even supposing it’s miles the result of highbrow creativity and attempt. An elaborated textual content that fulfills these situations could be included as systematic and literary paintings if it bears the characteristics of its author. (12)
Case law
In a 2008 choice, the eleventh Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Appeals tested whether or not TV formats could be taken into consideration similar to cinematographic works and dominated that TV codecs ought to be blanketed in the scope of the Copyright Act, on the subject of preceding Supreme Court of Appeals decisions. (13) Further, in a 2016 judgment, the Supreme Court of Appeals determined as follows:
A TV layout elaborated on a text that explains nearly every detail such as the positions of the host and the contestant in the course of the show, the particular wording for use while pronouncing industrial breaks, digital camera lighting, and capturing techniques will be covered as a systematic and literary painting in the meaning of Article 2 of Copyright Act.
In some other dispute from 2016, the Supreme Court said that “a format which does not include an in-depth description shall not experience copyright safety because it does now not reflect the characteristics of its author,” which implies that formats which undergo traits and go past abstract explanations of ideas are included as copyrighted paintings. (14) Further, a recent Supreme Court of Appeals judgment indicated that TV formats that endure no awesome traits aren’t included, restating the traits rule for TV formats. (15)
