In short
The rule in answer to who holds the copyright in a photograph is the person who created the frame. Giving a commission, or paying a price, does not of itself pass the economic rights to the person who commissioned it. A screenshot does not carry the right in someone else's photograph to the person who took the image. A photograph is a work if it bears its owner's character. When one looks at who holds the right, the record of the shot is read first, and then the written contract.
The person who took it is counted as the right holder
The owner of the work is the person who created the photograph. Describing the pose, opening the place, or hiring the equipment does not stand in for the person who made the shot. If more than one person created it together, the share is read according to the relationship between them. This text does not fix that share. If the rate stands in the parties' own document, it comes out of there. While there is no document, a percentage of the share is not written.
The person's image can be debated separately as a right of personality. That debate does not of itself carry ownership of the photograph as a work to the person who was photographed. Consent, and an assignment of copyright, are not the same paper. The consent of the person who was photographed does not, on its own, announce to whom the economic rights passed. If the record of who pressed the shutter stands, the decision is read from that record. While there is no record, a new owner is not announced.
A commission does not of itself create an assignment
In a wedding, product, or place shoot, taking delivery of the album is not an assignment of the economic rights. If an assignment is wanted, which rights pass is shown separately in a written contract. If the contract does not list the names of the rights, it is not said that the assignment was completed. The price having been paid does not of itself pass a right that is not written in the contract. In an employment relationship, with whom ownership of the work arises is a separate heading. The workplace does not of itself write every frame to the employer.
An invoice can show the price of the shoot. The invoice is not the list of the economic rights. The petition does not treat a right that does not stand in the contract as assigned either. The minutes of delivery of the album can show who took it. The minutes do not stand in for the assignment contract. Which right passed is read from the names of the articles of the contract themselves. If there is no name, it is not said that the right passed either.
A screenshot does not give rise to a new right
Saving a screenshot of someone else's photograph does not give rise to a new ownership of the work. The image is a reproduction of that photograph. Working on the image does not pass the right in the shot to the person who took the screen either. Cropping, a filter, or a new caption does not change the person who took it. The person who saved the screen does not become the owner of the document of the shot. A frame seen online is not announced as the work of the person who saved the record.
A product frame standing on a rival page can also call for a reading separate from the right in the shot. When the two readings join in the same file, the photograph and the layout of the page are not mixed. The decision is reached when the original frame and the screenshot are placed side by side. While there is no frame, an announcement of infringement is not made. The next step on the internet is discussed with the image in hand, if that image stands.
The record of the shot can show who pressed the shutter, and on which day it was taken. The record is not the list of the economic rights. The list stands in the written contract, by the name of the rights. A right whose name is not listed does not pass because the album was delivered. If more than one person took it, the share is read from their own document, and this text does not fix the share.
The date of the screenshot does not stand in for the date of the original frame. A cropped image does not produce a new owner of the work either. Which right was reproduced is not said before the original frame and the screen record are placed side by side.
The Çankaya address does not change the person who took it
A lawyer in Ankara who asks who the right holder is does not change the person who took it from the office's Çankaya address. The office in Çankaya does not choose the competent court, and it does not change the authority. The name of the district is not written in place of the record of the shot. The competent place is read from the dispute's own rule. The address of the office does not turn the commission into an assignment contract.
How the record of the shot is read
If the record of the shot and the written contract stand, the right is read from there. A commission is not counted as an assignment of itself. A screenshot is not counted as a new ownership of the work either.
Conclusion
The copyright in a photograph is, as a rule, with the person who took it. A commission, and a screenshot, do not of themselves carry this right. A new owner is not announced without the contract and the record of the shot. A product frame is in the product photograph article, and a work produced in employment is under a work produced at work. The online step is in the copyright on the internet article. The general frame is under copyright, and the field is on the intellectual property page. The basis is Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works.