by 
In the summer of 2025, data protection became a hot topic at public events. Concerts, festivals, and sports games sparked debate about what happens to images and videos of people in the crowd. The issue has drawn global attention, especially under the rules of the GDPR in Europe.
Most international lawyers agree that the GDPR still applies in public spaces if people can be clearly identified. Wide shots of a crowd are often allowed under “legitimate interest”. But if the camera zooms in on individuals, showing private moments, embarrassing, or harming someone’s reputation, then privacy rights usually take priority.
Much has been written about this from the GDPR perspective. Here, we look at a different question: how would these debates play out under Turkish law? To answer, we focus on two situations: (1) when organisers use the footage, and (2) when other people share it online.
I. Images Projected or Used by Event Organisers
In Turkey, if your image is shown on a big screen at a concert or later used in promotional materials, you may have several legal options. You could:
- File a complaint with the Turkish Data Protection Authority under the KVKK (data protection law).
- Go to civil court to protect your personality rights and seek compensation for moral damages.
- Claim infringement of image rights under copyright law (FSEK).
- Pursue criminal remedies under the Penal Code.
Not all of these options overlap, so each case depends on the type of footage, how it was used, and the harm caused.
Q: Are concert videos considered personal data under Turkish law?
Yes, if you can be identified from the video. Under the KVKK, just like the GDPR, personal data includes any information that can identify someone. A clear image of your face, gestures, or features counts, even if your name isn’t mentioned. Recording, showing, storing, or reusing this footage is considered “processing personal data.” Wide crowd shots may not count, but once you can be recognised, the law applies.
Q: Can organisers rely legally other than consent?
Yes. The law allows organisers to rely on “legitimate interest” as a basis, for example, showing general crowd shots to promote the event, so long as it doesn’t outweigh the audience’s rights. Wide-angle views usually pass this test. But if the camera zooms in on individuals, especially for marketing use, privacy rights normally take priority, and “legitimate interest” is unlikely to be enough.
Q: What about consent?
Consent can be used, but only as a last resort. It must be clear, informed, and freely given, not hidden in fine print on a ticket or tied to entering the venue. Turkish law does not accept “implied consent” except in very rare cases. Without explicit consent, showing individuals on big screens or using their images for promotion is risky and likely unlawful.
Q: Has the Turkish Data Protection Authority given guidance?
Not yet. There is no formal decision specifically addressing public event footage, leaving organisers without direct guidance. The safest practice is to rely on legitimate interests only for broad, non-intrusive crowd shots, and to get explicit consent whenever individuals are singled out or images are reused for marketing.
Q: Could this violate privacy rights under the Constitution?
Yes. Article 20 of the Turkish Constitution protects private life, and the Civil Code protects personality rights, including your image. Projecting a person onto a big screen without their knowledge or consent can be treated as an unlawful interference with privacy, giving them the right to claim damages.
Q: Do privacy rights disappear in public spaces?
No. The Turkish Court of Cassation says a public space is any place visible to everyone, but this does not mean people lose their right to privacy. Even in a crowd, the principle of anonymity applies, you cannot assume that someone has agreed to be recorded and shown in a way that makes them clearly identifiable.
This means that when people enter a public space, they still have a reasonable expectation of privacy. What matters is not just where the image was taken, but how it is used. If the footage singles someone out in a way that invades their private life, subjects them to ridicule, or damages their honour, dignity, or reputation, then it may still violate privacy rights, even if it was captured at a public concert or event.
Q: What remedies are available?
If someone’s image is projected in a way that embarrasses, causes reputational harm, or emotional distress, they can take legal action. Options include:
- Asking the court for an injunction to stop further use of the image
- Claiming compensation for moral damages
Turkish courts usually take a broad view of image rights. This means that even in public spaces, showing someone without permission can lead to liability if it harms their personal dignity.
Can someone claim protection if the harm is their own doing?
This raises a tricky question. Imagine someone goes to a concert with a partner who isn’t their spouse and gets caught on camera. If the footage damages their reputation, should the law protect them from the fallout of their own choices?
Under Turkish law, the right to privacy and image is protected broadly, but courts also apply the principle of good faith and abuse of rights (Civil Code Art. 2). This means that a person cannot use the law to cover up or profit from their own wrongful behaviour.
While unauthorised projection may still be unlawful, judges may reduce or deny damages if the claimant’s own conduct materially contributed to the harm. Put simply, the law protects human dignity, but it won’t reward someone for damage that comes directly from their own indiscretions.
Q: Do ticket terms protect organisers?
Event tickets often include small-print clauses saying that by attending, you agree to be filmed or photographed. But under Turkish law, this type of general clause offers only weak protection. The Civil Code says that giving up personality rights, like the right to control your own image, requires consent that is clear, specific, and truly informed.
If the consent is hidden in fine print or forced as a condition of entry, courts are unlikely to accept it, because it doesn’t give people a real choice.
This means that while organisers may try to rely on ticket terms as a defence, Turkish courts will look closely at whether the consent was genuine. If the footage embarrasses someone, harms their reputation, or goes beyond what they could reasonably expect at the event, the ticket terms won’t be enough to protect the organiser from liability.
One might ask: how is agreeing to appear on a reality TV show any different from being captured on a kiss cam?
At first glance, being on a reality TV show and being caught on a kiss cam might look similar, but legally they are very different. The difference comes down to consent and expectation.
Someone who joins a reality TV show signs a contract, gives clear and informed consent, and knows that embarrassment or ridicule could be part of the show. They agree to those risks in advance.
A concertgoer on a kiss cam has given no such consent, has no opportunity to refuse in the moment, and cannot reasonably anticipate that their private interactions will be broadcast to thousands or posted online afterwards.
In legal terms, reality TV participants have limited protection because they knowingly agreed to certain conditions. Kiss cam subjects, however, are entitled to the strongest protections of privacy and personality rights, precisely because they never gave valid consent.
II. Sharing on Social Media
Another issue arises when attendees film or photograph others and then share those images online. If you share a picture just once within a small, private circle, like sending it to family or close friends, this may fall under the “household use” exception in Turkey’s data protection law (KVKK).
But this exception disappears the moment the image is uploaded to public social media, shared widely beyond personal contacts, goes viral, or is used for profit, for example, in influencer posts or sponsored content. At that stage, the act of recording, posting, or reusing someone’s image without their consent can lead to several legal problems.
- Under civil law, it may count as a violation of someone’s personality rights.
- Under the KVKK, it may be treated as unlawful processing of personal data.
- Under the Penal Code (TCK), depending on the situation, it may be seen as a violation of private life (Article 134) or as the unlawful transfer of personal data (Article 136).
In short: once an image leaves private sharing and enters the public or commercial space, the uploader could face civil, administrative, and even criminal consequences.
The Case of Fan Pictures
Fan photos with celebrities help show where the legal line is. If an actor agrees to pose for a photo with a fan, that consent is clear. Sharing the picture later on personal social media is normally fine and does not breach privacy or personality rights.
But if the same photo is later used for commercial purposes, such as in an advertisement, a sponsored influencer post, or other monetised content, without the actor’s permission, the situation changes. In that case, it may violate the actor’s image rights under civil law and count as unlawful processing of personal data under the KVKK.
But What About Paparazzi?
Being famous does not mean giving up the right to privacy. Courts have made it clear, that public figures still have protection, unless the image relates to a genuine matter of public interest.
For example, a photo of an actor walking the red carpet at a film premiere is usually allowed as part of legitimate press coverage. But intrusive behaviour, like secretly photographing the same actor’s children during a family outing, crosses the line. In such cases, the law is more likely to see it as a violation of privacy and personality rights.
