In short
If an architectural project is implemented without permission, the fact that the drawing file was sent by electronic mail is not by itself permission to implement it. The architect looks at whether the right of implementation appears in the contract, and at whether the project on the building permit overlaps with the architect's own drawing. Delivery does not always create a right of implementation. A result is not made until the sheet and the contract have been seen.
Two permissions are not the same sentence
The project fee speaks of preparing the drawing. Implementation speaks of a building being made with that drawing. If the contract wrote only the first, the second does not arise by itself. The employer's sentence that "we paid the fee" does not create a right of implementation if there is no sentence in the contract. The fee shows the work for which it was charged. An assignment of the economic right, and a work produced in an employment relationship, are not the short form of this file. A sheet delivered by independent practice is not read as a copy of work drawn by an office employee.
The permit, the sheet and the revision
The project enclosed with the building permit may not be the same as the sheet the architect sent. If a storey was added or the facade was changed, the overlapping part is described. The whole building is not counted as the same work in every change. A survey minute writes which revision of the sheet went to the site. If there is no revision number, the overlap of the first drawing and the building is described separately. The date of the site photograph is placed beside the date of the permit, and the photograph does not stand in for permission to implement. Removal of the name from the project does not by itself mean that the right of implementation was assigned.
Neighbouring questions about the work do not finish the sheet
Assignment of the economic right stands under the economic right. A work in an employment relationship stands under the author. Unauthorised reproduction of the work, in unauthorised sharing, and removal of the name, in moral rights, are separate questions. The right of the person who photographs the building is under the photograph. Those records do not by themselves count the overlap of the permit sheet with the drawing as permission.
How the sheet is read
The contract, the project enclosed with the permit, and the survey minute are read together. The three documents are not copies of the same permission. Counsel in Ankara does not put a Çankaya office in the place of the administration that issued the permit. The administration is read from the permit's own record. A petition is not written without showing which sheet was implemented with which revision. A draft decision is not built by treating the delivery slip as a right of implementation.
How the overlapping part is described
A claim of unauthorised implementation is not built by saying that the whole building is the same work in every line. The overlapping storey, facade or plan is described. If the sheet enclosed with the permit and the version the architect sent are different, the revision in which the difference arose is read from the survey minute. On a site where there is no minute, the photograph shows the state at that moment, and the photograph does not stand in for permission to implement. If the contract speaks only of the project fee, the fact that the fee was paid does not assign the right of implementation by itself. The delivery slip writes which sheet was given to whom. A permission that is not written on the slip is not treated as completed by a sentence remembered later.
Unauthorised reproduction and removal of the name from the project are separate questions, and the two are not melted into the same petition. A work produced in an employment relationship is not the subject of this file. A decision is not built by treating the date of the permit as the date of the drawing. Which revision stands in the enclosures to the application is chosen, and a version that was not chosen is not treated as replaced by a file found later. The address of the office in Çankaya does not change the administration that issued the permit or the author of the work. The administration is read from the permit record. A right of implementation is not declared until the document, the contract and the minute stand together. The stamp on the sheet does not by itself show that permission to implement was assigned. The work for which the stamp was impressed is read from the sentence in the contract. If the measurement applied on the site departs from the measurement in the drawing, the departing part is described, and the whole structure is not written as the same work. In a file with no revision number, the first delivery and the last state are placed side by side. A result of unauthorised implementation is not built before this comparison is made. The day the photograph was taken cannot be put in the place of the day the permit was issued. A receipt for the fee is not a copy of the permission sentence either.
Conclusion
In an architectural file, what is looked at is whether permission to implement is in the text, and whether the permit sheet overlaps with the drawing. Delivery is not the short form of this permission. A photograph and a receipt for the fee do not stand in for the permission sentence in the contract. The frame is on the intellectual property page, and the basis is in the text of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works.