Platforms are winning, journalism is losing... What will the Digital Channels Commission in Turkey do?

Significant developments are taking place globally and in Turkey regarding digital copyrights and the use of AI, concerning the monopolistic practices and regulations of major technology companies. The Turkish Grand National Assembly (TBMM) Digital Channels Commission has been working on a digital copyright law since May 2024.

The commission met with the agenda of a "digital copyright regulation" supported by the Demirören and Turkuvaz media groups, Anadolu Agency, and other publishing organizations; it held meetings with companies such as Google, TikTok, and Netflix.

The negotiations were hindered by the companies' excuse of "trade secrets."

During the same period, the TBMM Artificial Intelligence Commission also prepared a report from legal and ethical perspectives. Efforts were made to shape legal regulations in areas such as artificial intelligence, algorithmic transparency, digital copyright, and the obligations of platforms, particularly through the meetings held with Google.

However, due to unproductive polemics between parties in the commission and the fact that academic studies in Turkey are limited and public awareness is insufficient regarding a topic too important to be sacrificed to domestic politics.

The commission consists of 8 AKP, 4 CHP, 2 DEM, 1 MHP, and 1 IYI Party representatives. Although AKP Deputy Chairman and Chairman of the TBMM Digital Channels Commission Hüseyin Yayman planned to submit the "digital copyright" regulation bill to the Speaker of the Parliament by the beginning of June 2025, this did not happen.

On June 17, AKP Giresun Deputy Nazım Elmas was appointed as the new chairman of the commission. While government representatives argued that the law should be enacted in line with sectoral demands, opposition parties emphasized that the regulation should cover not only large media organizations but also employees and content creators.

The opposition criticized the non-transparent structure of digital giants like Google and demanded a participatory legislative preparation process. They reached a consensus on considering areas such as ethics, freedom of expression, and job security.

However, the concepts highlighted by each party regarding the regulation in the commission meetings differ.

The CHP is not against the stricter protection of digital content through copyright laws, as emphasized by government representatives; but it is against a perspective that prioritizes large actors in the sector. It demands a holistic, transparent, and fair model that protects organized labor by taking the opinions of all stakeholders in the sector, not just large media organizations.

The DEM Party argued that strict digital oversight could lead to undesirable consequences and that the regulation should be considered in a multi-dimensional way, including freedom of expression, the digital divide, public interest, and the rights of content creators. Here, Commission Chairman Hüseyin Yayman's remarks, drawing attention to the need to protect societal and family values in the regulation by saying, "If protecting society is censorship, then we are censors," bring to mind the consequences experienced with the disinformation law.

Various regulations regarding digital copyrights have been and are being made globally and in Turkey. Discussions on laws and legislation regarding digital copyright and AI in the US and the EU revolve around the unauthorized use of news content by AI, the balance between platforms (Google, Meta, OpenAI) and content creators (journalists, publishing houses), and the adequacy of legislation in the AI era.

In the US, the legal basis relies on the Fair Use doctrine, meaning there is a broad interpretation of using content for transformative purposes. It is being debated whether the unauthorized transfer of news content as data to large language models constitutes copyright infringement.

The US Copyright Office (USCO) called for new regulations in a report published in January 2025. Although the US, as always, prioritizes companies and does not directly restrict technology companies, the tension between commercial freedom and fair use continues.

The number of those who think the copyright system is facing a need for reform in the AI era is increasing.

While there is advanced legislation on copyright in the EU, it is seen that it lags behind in practice. The legal basis relies on the CDSM Directive (2019). Specifically, Article 15 grants "neighboring rights" to publishers (news sites). Article 17 imposes content filtering and liability on platforms. While tough licensing negotiations continue between platforms like Google/Meta and publishers, institutions such as the French Competition Authority and the German BNetzA are stepping in. The EU also lacks clear provisions in its legislation regarding data mining for AI model training. For this reason, a regulation and revision specifically targeting AI are expected.

When we come to Turkey, copyright is regulated by the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK) – Law No. 5846. The FSEK, which entered into force on December 13, 1951, last underwent various changes with Law No. 5101 in 2004. Accordingly, news content in Turkey is still considered a work.

Publisher rights do not have a clear definition.

There is also no specific regulation regarding the use of copyrighted content as training data. There is no legal regulation or public debate in Turkey regarding content scraping for AI and LLM (Large Language Models) training. The copyright status of content created with AI is also unclear. This means there is not yet a systematic digital media-copyright-AI strategy.

Due to legislation lagging behind technological developments and implementation difficulties worldwide, media organizations are taking legal action against AI companies on the grounds that they use their content without permission.

In the UK, the BBC accused Perplexity of using its content without permission (Reuters).

In Germany, GEMA sued OpenAI, accusing it of training ChatGPT with song lyrics without permission (TaylorWessing).

In Canada, CBC, the Toronto Star, and other publishers filed a class-action copyright lawsuit against OpenAI in November 2024.

In the US, members of the News/Media Alliance filed a lawsuit against Cohere in February 2025. In India, media groups such as the Indian Express and NDTV filed a lawsuit against OpenAI in January 2025 (Press Gazette).

While global technology companies capturing the majority of world advertising revenue by using media products and services in platformization lead to a multi-dimensional crisis in digital journalism, there is no major lawsuit filed against AI or platform companies in Turkey yet.

So much so that Google has made small and independent media almost invisible due to algorithm changes and the zeroing out of "Discover" traffic for many news sites. With this loss of traffic, advertising, and revenue, many digital media organizations have ended their broadcasting life or have been forced to downsize.

In fact, algorithmic dynamics show how platform capitalism works. Google is restructuring the media market by using its control over access and its algorithmic power.

In this context, the Digital Channels Commission process in Turkey constitutes a serious threshold in the regulatory struggle against platform power. If the regulation process is not carried out carefully, the process may carry the risk of regulatory capture (regulations in favor of platforms). In this context, algorithmic transparency must be made a mandatory condition.

Google should explain the reasons for changes in advance. The legislation should also include topics of AI and digital data mining.

Platform–publisher relations in news content should be regulated with a revenue-sharing model, as in the EU. The Competition Authority should subject digital platforms to economic scrutiny. Independent media, academia, and legal experts should actively contribute to the draft.

Publishers and media unions should establish collective structures to negotiate licenses with platforms like Google and Meta. Otherwise, the risk of the "invisibilization of the information worker" will increase, and restrictions and disruptions in the revenue model will continue to grow. Because the "AI Overview" feature that Google is testing in the US, where AI provides summarized answers above search results—silencing news sites—will very soon come to Turkey.

The importance of legislation and regulations also depends on the effort to "make the invisible visible." Because information and news should not become one of the tools of monopolization over information by global technology companies and large capital groups.

Because those who dominate not the news, but access to the news (technological infrastructure), should not seize all the value and revenue. The main question is; why does such an important issue not become an agenda item on the political plane? Another important question is, besides the trade secrets of black-box technology in the enactment of laws, are the meetings and negotiations held with platforms in the commission regarding the legislation transparent enough?

We will follow the regulations regarding the legislation and see the developments when the TBMM opens in October.