In short
If a book is translated without permission, the author meets a permission problem different from the work being shared as it is, and the question of what to do is read from the language that was permitted. The language that was permitted and the language of the copy that came out are placed side by side, and the language sentence in the imprint is not treated as a permission document on its own. If there is no permission text, the translation is not treated as free on its own, and the existence of an old edition does not open the new language either. Exceeding the print run is not the subject of this distinction. The debate about the number stays in the neighbouring text, and a price rate does not enter this body as a figure either.
The language sentence sets the limit
If the contract says this language, another language is not inside that sentence. If it says all languages, the limit may have widened, and the two are not the same result. How the economic right passed sits in the account of assignment of economic rights. Unauthorised sharing of the work stays apart in the text of sharing of the work. Extra copies in the same language are in the account of the print run. A translation is not a copy of that debate about numbers, and a number is not written into this body as a figure. The copy that came out is compared with whichever publishing house and whichever language the permission document writes. A publishing house that is not written is not counted inside the permission.
The imprint of the copy that came out
The imprint of the translated book shows the publishing house and the year. If the imprint is not the publishing house in the contract, a second permission is looked for, and the year does not itself produce that permission. While permission is missing, the imprint does not write that the translation is free, and the author's name standing on the cover is not a permission document either. Dropping the name is read in the account of moral rights. If the name stands, permission is not treated as having arisen either, and the cover design does not stand in for the language sentence. If the translation covers only one part, permission is looked for for the part that remains outside the part as well. If the part limit is not in the imprint, the whole of the copy is read.
The translator's contract does not stand in for the author's
The translator's labour does not remove the permission for the original text. The contract between the translator and the publishing house does not stand in for the author's contract. The two texts are read side by side. One does not itself complete the other's petition, and the translator's name does not erase the original author's permission. If a book is translated without permission, the author's permission document and the copy that came out are kept on separate lines. If the application papers have no language sentence, which right was exceeded is not drawn, and an invoice does not later set free a language that was not written.
The authority and the document
That the office is in Çankaya does not choose the competent authority in a translation dispute. The publishing house's district does not itself establish the scope of the permission either. A decision is not given before the permission contract and the imprint of the copy that came out stand side by side, and a warehouse slip is not put in place of the language sentence. If the set of documents is incomplete, which language the translation went into is not announced, and a cover photograph does not complete a missing contract. Permission given for an old edition does not itself cover a language that was not written, and the publishing house of that permission is not itself carried onto the new imprint.
The statutory frame sets no number
The Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works No. 5846 carries the ground of the economic and moral rights in the work. This body does not add a print run or a price rate. The particular result is read from the language that was permitted and the language of the copy that came out. A sharing record does not stand in for this permission. If the imprint and the contract conflict, a result is not built by leaving the conflict silent, and the language is not announced as free before the two documents are read side by side. The translator's labour is not, within this statutory frame, a shortcut that removes the permission for the original text.
Conclusion
In a translation file, the place that is looked at is the language that was permitted and the language of the copy that came out. A sharing record does not stand in for this permission, and an old edition is not treated as having opened the new language. The translator's contract does not erase the author's permission, the name on the cover is not a permission document either, and the imprint of the old edition is not treated as having opened the new language. The frame sits on the intellectual property law page. If the permission document and the imprint are missing, which language the book was left free in is not said. An old edition does not close this gap either, and a cover photograph does not stand in for the language sentence.