In short
A work that is reproduced, or opened to the public, without the owner's permission enters a debate on the economic right without a registration certificate being required. A screenshot does not, in every file, finish who the work belongs to. The sharing being deleted does not of itself close the earlier reproduction. Deletion of the name is a moral right. The period is not fixed in this article.
The work and the act are separated first
Protection stands not in an abstract idea, but in a concrete work. If a text, an image, music, or software enters this mould, the frame itself is in the copyright article. Whether the act is copying the work, or opening it to the public on the internet, is read from the record. A software file is not the short name of this record. The distinction stands in the copyright in software article.
If a work is shared without permission, the owner first separates their own copy of the work and the address of the unauthorised copy. The idea and the expression are placed side by side. Whether a short sentence is counted as a work is asked by looking at the concrete state of that sentence. A general word of "it is my idea" does not show the address of the copy.
An image does not finish ownership
A screenshot can show that the sharing was done. It may not show who created the work, whether a commission contract passed the right, and whether a licence covers that use. The person who took the photograph and the account that uploaded the photograph may be different. Ownership is in the copyright in a photograph article. A licence given by a collecting society does not stop every sharing.
A licence contract writes in its own text which medium, and which period, it covers. If there is no text, the scope is not invented. An invoice can show the price of a job. Who the right stayed with is read not from the invoice, but from the contract and from the copy of the work.
How the sharing is separated
The original of the work, the address of the unauthorised copy, and any licence contract are placed side by side. A post that was deleted does not of itself end the earlier reproduction. The period is not written. The address of the office in Çankaya does not change the competent court, or the register authority. The authority is read from the place where the work was used and from the record in the contract.
If the application or the petition treats the screenshot as the original of the work, ownership stays half done. The decision separates who created the work, and whether the act is reproduction or communication to the public. The rate is not in this article.
Deletion of the name is another right
The owner's name not being written, or the work being altered, is read as a moral right alongside the economic right. Transfer of the economic right does not erase the moral right in every file. The distinction is in the moral rights article. Deletion of the name does not mean the sharing was never done. The two questions are not dissolved in the same sentence.
If the owner can show the date of the work and the first copy, that showing is what is discussed. If they cannot, a screenshot does not, on its own, finish ownership. The other side's words "I took it too" are not accepted without a copy.
The address of the copy and the first copy
The question of what the owner does is not answered before the first copy of the work and the address of the unauthorised copy come side by side. The address is shown with the account name and the date on the screenshot. If there is no date, the order of the sharing is not invented. If the first copy is older than the commission contract, the contract may not have passed the right. If the contract is later than the copy, whether there was a passing is read from the sentence of the contract. If the sentence is a general word of assignment, which right passed is not completed.
The same work standing on two accounts can be two separate acts. One does not close with the deletion of the other. A claim of closing writes which address came down, and which one still stands. If there is a licence from a collecting society, which use the licence covers is read from the text. Even if the text says a wide permission, a period that is empty is not completed. Even if an invoice shows the price of the job, it does not, on its own, finish who the economic right stayed with.
Having the name written, and stopping the reproduction, can be two heads of the same petition. If the heads are mixed, it is not separated which request will be examined. The separation does not invent a period. If the period is written in the contract in hand, it is read from there. If it is not written, this text does not set a period.
Conclusion
Sharing without permission does not pass the work to the other side. Registration is not a condition. The record of the sharing is not reduced to a screenshot. This article is general information. The concrete work and the record of the sharing are seen separately. The frame is on the intellectual property law page.
The basis is the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works.