For the last few decades, copyright on intellectual and artistic works and related rights over performances, phonograms, cinematographic productions, and radiotelevision broadcasts have been subjected to violations very easily and on a large scale, especially with innovations in the field of digital technologies. Therefore, on the one hand, regulations are being made at the international level, such as the TRIPS and WIPO Internet Agreements, while on the other hand, many of the states in the world are making various legal regulations to combat more effectively the violations of the rights of rights holders over their intellectual products on a national scale. 

The basis of various changes and new regulations in the Turkish Copyright Code (TCC) in the year 1995 and thereafter is essentially the aim of combating more effectively the violations of rights on intellectual products increased by technological innovations. In fact, it is necessary to evaluate the amendments made in 1995 and after Article 68 of the TCC regarding the refutation of infringements of financial rights on copyrighted products. 

In this essay, the amended provisions of Article 68 of the TCC are examined. To put it briefly, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 68; the right holder who is subject to infringement of any of the financial rights in the form of processing, reproduction, dissemination, representation, and communication to the public on the work and intellectual and artistic products that are the subject of related rights may request the application of the method of refutation of infringement by demanding three times (namely triple compensation) the usual price. Although it is not explicitly stated in this Article, natural and legal persons defined as holders of rights under Article 80 of the Law can also use the same powers. Accordingly, those who adapt, reproduce, disseminate reproduced copies, represent, or communicate to the public a work, performance, phonogram, or production without obtaining written permission from the rights owner, or transmitting any sign, sound, or image to the public, without the permission of the rights holders, shall not be entitled to the price they may claim in the event of a contract, or they may request a maximum of three times more than the current market price to be determined in accordance with the provisions of this Law. As can be seen, in a copyrighted work unauthorised use of any of the rights of adaptation, reproduction, dissemination, representation in public places and transmission to the public is sufficient to demand more than three times the usual price of the infringed product, namely treble damage. 

However, in the second and third paragraphs of Article 68 of the Law, other rights are granted to the right holder in addition to the demand for three times the price in cases where the right to reproduce the copyrighted product alone and the right to disseminate it are violated. Other refutation methods, other than the triple compensation request, can only be used in cases of infringement of the right to reproduce and distribute along with reproduction. For example, if the action of a perpetrator violates any of the rights of processing, dissemination, representation, or transmission to the public, the refutation methods defined in the Law specific to the right of reproduction are not applied. In fact, due to the nature of these refutation methods specific to the right to reproduction, it is not possible to apply them in cases of infringement of other financial rights related to copyrighted work. Likewise, since the right to reproduction or dissemination is the most violated in practise, the second and third paragraphs of Article 68 include reproduction and dissemination as the only financial rights that can be subject to refutation methods other than the request for more than three times the usual price of infringed work.

In this context, if the copies reproduced without permission are not put up for sale, the right holder may request the destruction of the reproduced copies, films, moulds and similar tools used for reproduction, or that they be given to him for an appropriate price not exceeding the production cost price, or, in the case of a contract, three times more than the amount he may request. This does not eliminate the legal liability of the unauthorised reproducer. If copies reproduced without permission are put up for sale, the rightful owner may use one of the options in the second paragraph regarding the copies in the possession of the infringer. However, for the second and third paragraphs to be implemented by rights holders other than the owner of the work, written reproduction permission from the owner of the work in accordance with Article 52 of the TCC is required.

Rights claims arising under Article 68 can only be used in cases of violation of financial rights. If the rights violated are of a moral nature or if moral rights are violated along with financial rights, it is not possible for the plaintiff to request a decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 68 in respect of moral rights. The request for a reconsideration of moral rights can only be made within the scope of Articles 66 and 67 of the TCC.

Finally, with the amendments made after 1995, the demand for three times the usual price, the payment of appropriate compensation for pirated copies, or the exercise of the right to destroy both copies and reproduction means, which is granted to the right holder on intellectual products in Article 68, is not conditioned on the fault of the perpetrator. It is not necessary for the plaintiff, whose financial rights have been violated, to suffer any damage in order to make such claims. In order to file a lawsuit according to Article 68, it is sufficient that the act attributed to the perpetrator is contrary to the law, that is, an unlawful act. Assuming that the use of the rights recognised in the TCC without the permission of the right owner and without any other reason for compliance with the law violates the rights, to deter possible and future infringements, the right owner is requested to pay three times the price he would have requested if he had made a contract with the infringer or the market value of the right subject to violation. Although such legal claims do not comply with the basic principles of Turkish compensation law, such sanctions are considered punishments specific to private law.