Software Copyright Damages Claim Settled After Unlicensed Use Confirmed by Court Expert — Ankara 1st IP Court 2025/66

Unauthorised use of computer software gives rise to both criminal liability and civil damages under Turkish law. Article 68(1) of the Intellectual and Artistic Works Act (FSEK) allows the copyright holder to claim damages of up to three times the market licence fee when the work has been used without authorisation. Ankara 1st IP Court's decision 2025/66 concerns a case where pre-trial evidence gathering, parallel criminal proceedings, and a damages claim under Art. 68 combined to produce a settlement.

Background

The plaintiff is a long-established engineering software company founded in 1989 and widely recognised as a pioneer in geospatial data digitisation. Its software programme is protected as an intellectual and literary work under FSEK, and its name is also registered as a trademark.

Following a court-ordered inspection of the defendants' premises, a court expert confirmed that:

• The plaintiff's software, together with various modules, was running in unlicensed (pirated) form for commercial purposes on two computers at the defendants' workplace.
• The software had been installed by cracking the password protection.

The plaintiff claimed damages equal to three times the applicable licence fee under FSEK Art. 68(1), initially quantified at TRY 100,000 with the right to increase the claim reserved.

Defence

The defendants raised several arguments: the software had been installed 4–5 years earlier and was not in active use; the installation had occurred without the company's knowledge; the expert report contained no clear finding of commercial use; and the plaintiff's weak password protection was alleged to be a deliberate strategy to enable infringement and generate litigation revenue through hundreds of similar cases.

Settlement and Decision

The parties settled both the civil claim and the parallel criminal investigation. Under the settlement, the defendants agreed to bear mediation costs; no order for costs or attorneys' fees was sought by either side. The court recorded that there was no need to rule on the merits.

Commentary

The pivotal procedural step in this case was the pre-trial inspection (keşif) and expert report. Without that court-ordered evidence gathering, the plaintiff would have had no concrete proof of the unlicensed installation. The parallel criminal investigation further strengthened the plaintiff's negotiating position and brought both threads to a joint resolution. For software rights holders, the lesson is clear: an early application for a court-ordered evidence preservation and inspection order is among the most valuable tools available before initiating damages proceedings.