NFTs, commonly known as non-fungible tokens, have become an important legal issue in recent years, especially in relation to digital art, collectibles, in-game assets, music, videos, photographs and other forms of digital content. In Turkish legal discussions, NFTs are sometimes also referred to as nitelikli fikri tapu, which may be translated as a qualified intellectual title or qualified intellectual ownership record.

The main feature of NFTs is that each token is unique or distinguishable from other crypto-assets. For this reason, NFTs are often presented as a digital indicator of ownership, authenticity or association with a specific digital content or intellectual property-related asset.

Turkish law does not yet contain a detailed and specific statutory framework for NFTs. However, the general reasoning of Law No. 7518 refers indirectly to crypto-assets that are similar to NFTs. This reference suggests that NFTs should be assessed in Turkish law particularly from the perspective of intellectual and industrial property rights.

What Is an NFT?

An NFT may generally be described as a unique digital record created on a blockchain or similar distributed ledger technology and connected to a specific digital asset or content.

An NFT may be associated with a digital artwork, photograph, video, sound recording, in-game asset, collectible item or other digital content. However, the NFT itself and the digital content to which it relates are not necessarily the same thing. In many cases, the NFT functions as a record of ownership, access, authenticity or verification in relation to the relevant digital content.

This distinction is important under Turkish law. Owning an NFT does not automatically mean owning all copyright or intellectual property rights in the underlying work.

NFTs in the General Reasoning of Law No. 7518

The statutory text of Law No. 7518 does not directly use the term “NFT”. However, the general reasoning of the law refers to crypto-assets that create proof of ownership similar to copyright in relation to photographs, videos, sounds, works of art and other similar items.

Although this wording does not expressly use the term NFT, it clearly points to the main function of NFTs. NFTs are commonly used to establish a digital link between a particular work or digital content and a record of ownership, authenticity or belonging.

For this reason, it may be said that the Turkish legislator approaches NFTs mainly from the perspective of intellectual property and proof of ownership.

Is NFT Ownership the Same as Copyright Ownership?

One of the most important legal issues concerning NFTs is the distinction between NFT ownership and copyright ownership. As a rule, purchasing an NFT does not automatically mean that the buyer acquires all copyright in the underlying work.

For example, a person who purchases an NFT connected to a digital artwork may only acquire ownership of that NFT. The rights to reproduce, commercially use, modify, publish or monetize the artwork may not have been transferred unless this is expressly agreed.

Therefore, the following questions are important in NFT transactions:

Does the NFT only provide a digital ownership record?

Are copyright rights in the underlying work also transferred?

Can the NFT holder use the work commercially?

Can the work be reproduced, modified or published?

Does the sale agreement clearly specify which rights are transferred?

The answers to these questions are crucial in determining the legal consequences of an NFT transaction.

NFTs and Intellectual Property Law

NFTs are particularly relevant to intellectual property law because they are often connected to digital artworks and creative content. The content underlying an NFT may qualify as a protected work under the Turkish Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works.

However, the key point is that the protected work is usually the underlying content, not necessarily the NFT itself. The NFT may serve as a technical and digital record linked to the work, but copyright in the work must be assessed separately.

For this reason, several issues are important for artists, collectors, platforms and buyers:

Who is the author of the work?

Who has the right to mint or issue the NFT?

Are copyright rights transferred?

What is the scope of the license granted to the NFT holder?

Is there any royalty or revenue-sharing mechanism for resale?

How do the platform terms affect ownership and use rights?

If these issues are not clearly regulated, serious legal disputes may arise.

NFT as Proof of Ownership

In practice, NFTs are often used as proof of digital ownership or authenticity. Minting a work as an NFT allows that work to be linked to a specific digital record. This record may show who created the NFT, when it was created and through which wallets it was transferred.

However, the technical existence of an ownership record does not always create an undisputed legal property right. Under Turkish law, ownership, copyright, license rights and contractual rights of use must be assessed separately.

Therefore, the use of an NFT as proof of ownership becomes legally meaningful only when considered together with contracts, platform rules and intellectual property provisions.

Importance of Contracts in NFT Sales

Contractual arrangements are very important in NFT sales. The rights transferred together with the NFT should be clearly specified. Otherwise, the buyer may not know exactly what rights are being acquired.

In NFT transactions, the following issues should be clearly regulated:

Description of the underlying work,

Rights granted to the NFT holder,

Whether copyright is transferred,

Whether commercial use is permitted,

Rules on resale of the NFT,

Royalty or revenue-sharing mechanisms,

Liability of the platform,

Consequences of unauthorized or counterfeit NFTs.

Clear contractual provisions increase legal certainty for both creators and NFT buyers.

Unauthorized Minting of NFTs

One of the major legal risks in practice is the unauthorized minting of NFTs. If a person turns another person’s photograph, video, music, drawing or digital artwork into an NFT without permission, this may constitute an infringement of intellectual property rights.

In such cases, the author or rights holder may rely on legal remedies based on copyright infringement, unauthorized use, material and moral damages, unlawful reproduction or commercial exploitation.

The fact that an NFT is created on a blockchain does not eliminate the legal consequences of unauthorized use. Even though the technological infrastructure is different, Turkish intellectual property law may still apply where a protected work is used without permission.

Liability of NFT Platforms

Platforms also play an important role in NFT transactions. NFT platforms may operate as digital spaces where NFTs are listed, sold, transferred or stored. Therefore, platform terms, infringement notification mechanisms and user responsibilities should be carefully regulated.

In practice, it may become important how a platform responds to NFTs created without the permission of the rights holder, how complaint mechanisms operate and whether an allegedly infringing NFT can be removed from listings.

For NFT platforms, not only technical security but also intellectual property compliance and user information are important.

Need for Further Regulation under Turkish Law

NFTs are not yet subject to a detailed and specific regulatory framework under Turkish law. The indirect reference to NFT-like assets in the general reasoning of Law No. 7518 is an important starting point. However, clearer rules may be needed regarding the legal nature of NFTs, ownership, copyright transfer, platform liability and user rights.

In the future, the following issues are likely to be discussed more frequently:

The distinction between NFT ownership and copyright ownership,

The content of NFT sale agreements,

Legal remedies for unauthorized minting,

The liability regime of NFT platforms,

NFTs under inheritance, enforcement and tax law,

Protection of digital artworks,

The relationship between NFTs, consumer law and distance selling rules.

These issues show that NFTs are not only a technological matter, but also a significant legal issue.

Conclusion

NFTs occupy an important position at the intersection of intellectual property, digital ownership and crypto-asset law in Turkey. Although Law No. 7518 does not directly use the term NFT, its general reasoning refers to crypto-assets that create proof of ownership similar to copyright in relation to photographs, videos, sounds, works of art and similar items.

This approach indicates that NFTs are mainly assessed in Turkish law from the perspective of intellectual and industrial property rights. However, NFT ownership and copyright ownership are not the same. Purchasing an NFT does not automatically mean acquiring all intellectual property rights in the underlying work.

For this reason, contractual arrangements, intellectual property rights, platform rules and user information are as important as the technical infrastructure of NFT transactions. More detailed regulation of NFTs under Turkish law would increase legal certainty for both creators and NFT users.