In short
The taking or the spreading of an image of an adult that concerns their private life, without their consent, is a subject of complaint to the police or to the public prosecutor's office. This page is for a person of age. An image of a child is not recounted. A method of spreading is not written. Consent to the taking and consent to showing it later are not the same thing. An insulting word beside the image is left to the writing the offence of insult. The complaint separates which step was without consent.
Consent to the taking and consent to the showing
The secrecy of private life concerns the person's dwelling, their private relation and the area they kept closed to others. Every photograph does not enter this heading by itself. A frame in a crowded place that does not concern private life, and a record taken in a dwelling or in a closed relation, are not the same claim. The complaint writes why the image concerns private life, with the fact you know. The prosecutor makes the characterisation. You do not have to guess the article of the offence.
Consent is looked at separately for the moment the taking was made and for the image being shown to someone else. Permission for the taking is not permission for every showing. Permission for the showing does not by itself prove that the taking was with consent from the start either. Permission may have been given for a particular person and for a particular moment. That limit does not close the claim that it was shown to everyone later. The limit, if it stands in correspondence or in a witness, is read from there. If it does not, it is said that it is absent. A wide permission is not added to the petition by a guess.
If both are claimed, the minute writes the two facts in two sentences. In the first, it is written when and where the record was taken, and that there was no consent. In the second, it is written with whom the record was seen and when it was learned. The person harmed does not choose the name of the offence. These acts concerning private life are among the offences the statute ties to a condition of complaint. The period is read from the provision in the statute, according to learning of the act and of the perpetrator. This page does not put a number of days on that period. The complaint is still taken into the record without delay on the day you learned it.
What stands in the petition of complaint
The petition writes with whom the image was seen, when it was learned, and that there was no consent. If the person who took it is known, their name is written. If it is not known, the account that is known, or the person who passed it to you, is written. An incomplete identity does not leave the record without effect by itself. Completing the identity by your own search is not a part of this application. Entering someone else's account is not gathering evidence.
Sending the image again to groups, to acquaintances or to third persons is not a complaint. The annex of the complaint is the giving of the copy in hand to the competent unit. This giving does not contain a description of spreading. A piece is not chosen from inside the copy and put into another context. In the petition, what the image shows is written as far as it will recount the fact that concerns private life. The detail is not lengthened in the language of entertainment or of shame. The aim is to show in which step there was no consent.
If it was said that it would not be spread in return for a benefit, the subject is in the writing what a person harmed by blackmail should do. This text does not build that bargain. The performance that was asked for may stand, as far as what is written in the message, as a separate fact. A counter-offer is not added. If an application was made to the platform's own notification channel, it is written that it was made. This application does not stand in for the complaint to the prosecutor's office. The two are separate papers. The platform removing the content does not drop the criminal complaint by itself. Its not removing it does not mean that the complaint will be accepted either.
The copy in hand stands and is not distributed again
A record that reached you is not deleted. Deleting it does not cause the taking or the spreading to be treated as not having happened. There is no promise that a deleted file will come back. The record is not cut, writing is not added on it, and it is not rearranged with another edit. An arranged copy is not presented as the original record. If the original is not in hand, what is in hand and whom it came from is written openly. A screenshot does not stand in for the original file by itself. If there are both, both are kept without being changed.
The record stands for the evidence. Its standing is not publishing it again. Passing it to acquaintances so that they have news is not a step that completes the complaint. If it was passed, the person it was passed to and the day are written separately in the minute. This writing is not a new description of spreading. It is passing what happened into the record. After this, a new passing is not made. A new condition is not proposed to the other side for them to delete the record. Proposing a condition is not a part of the complaint.
If an investigation is opened, what becomes of the record stays with the procedure of the file. You do not continue to circulate the record outside the investigation. If you are called for a statement, you recount what you know. You do not complete an hour you do not remember as certain. The working of the summons is inside the general course of the investigation. That course is in the writing how a prosecutor's investigation works.
A word of insult does not reduce the image to one offence
An image concerning private life and a word that breaks honour may stand in the same message. The same message does not make two offences one element. The assessment of the word stays under the heading the offence of insult. This writing recounts the claim that an image of an adult was taken or spread without consent. In the minute the word stands in a separate sentence, and the image stands in a separate sentence. The period of imprisonment of the word is not written on this page. The year of punishment of the image is not written either.
The general rights in the complaint are in the writing how the rights of the person harmed are used. Withdrawal of the complaint may speak of dropping only if the offence depends on a complaint and with the conditions the statute looks for. The paper of withdrawal is not a redistribution of the image. It must show the act and the person. An uncertain sentence of "I withdrew" does not close both the taking and the spreading by itself.
A record whose identity is not known is complained of as well
Not knowing the name of the person who took it does not drop the application by itself. The account you know, the person who passed it to you, and the place you first saw the image are written. If the place is an internet address, the address is noted as it is, and without being shortened. How the address would be multiplied is not recounted. The note is for showing the place of the evidence. You do not search whom the account belongs to with your own means. The search is not a condition of the complaint.
If more than one person is in the image, each complains in their own name. Your complaint does not erase the will of the other. If the other person is not of age, this page does not recount their image. You, who are an adult, give the complaint for your own image. If there is a record that belongs to a child, an application is made to the police or to the prosecutor's office. The content is not described here. In the application, it is stated that the record concerns a child. The detail is not written. The record is not passed to third persons.
The day you learned it and the day it was taken stand separately
If you do not know the day the image was taken, it is written that you do not know. What you know is the day you first saw the image. If the two days are taken as the same, which day the complaint will be tied to gets mixed. The period is read from the provision in the statute and from the day of learning. This page does not put a number of days. The learning may also be by someone else showing it to you. If the name of the person who showed it is known, it is written. If it is not known, the account that is known is written. Searching for an identity by entering the account is not a part of this learning.
If there is correspondence that shows the limit of the consent, the correspondence is kept separately from the image itself. A sentence is not added onto the correspondence later. If the permission is particular to a certain person and a certain moment, the limit is passed on from that text. A wide permission that is not in the text is not added. If there is no permission at all, it is said that there is none. When a minute number comes out, the number is kept. Sending the same image to new persons so that they have news does not strengthen the number. If you see it in a new place, the day and the place you saw it are added to the old number. If the place is an address, the address is noted as it is. How the address would be multiplied is not written. Your identity and your address for service stand in the petition. If there is no address, a later writing may not reach you. Not reaching does not mean that the complaint has fallen. If you will give an attorney, the power of attorney is added. The power of attorney is not authority to pass the image to third persons outside the file. At the call for a statement you say what you know. You do not complete a frame you do not remember by a guess.
Conclusion
The path for an image of an adult is the complaint of a claim of taking or of spreading without consent. The two consents are written separately. The copy in hand stands and is not distributed again. A platform notification does not stand in for the complaint to the prosecutor's office. Insult is a separate heading. The frame is on the page criminal law. The contact path is open for the record in hand. The basis is the text of Turkish Penal Code No. 5237 and, for the procedure of the application, of Criminal Procedure Law No. 5271.