In short
Database protection is the separate reading of the labour of selection and arrangement in a compilation, and of the investment. Raw data is not always protected on its own. The code of software is not this compilation itself. There is no term in this text, and none is added. The question whether database protection is copyright is read from how the list was built, and from which document shows the labour. There is no promise of an absolute monopoly.
A work and an investment are not the same sentence
Originality of selection and arrangement is where copyright protection is discussed. An ordinary dump is not closed as a work without the labour of selection. In a compilation that contains a substantial investment, a separate debate on protection can be opened. That debate is not finished by writing a figure of years. The year is not in the file. A random list and a labour-intensive compilation are not the same document. Which of them required labour is read from the records of collection, verification, and updating. If there is no record, labour is not assumed.
Individual facts, records open to the public, and mere ideas often stay free. Writing a fact into a database does not make the fact itself a monopoly. A line taken from a public register does not erase the source of the register. The source register and the compilation stand side by side. Whether the contribution of the compilation is a repetition of the source line, or a selected arrangement, comes out of the document.
Software, a secret, and the contract
The copyright in the code is separate from the rows of the database. The program can run the compilation. Running it does not by itself prove that the rows are a work. An access contract can separately limit data that can technically be pulled. A prohibition in the contract is not put in place of the copyright result. If the two regimes conflict, both are written. Which of them was infringed depends on which document was breached. The licence should write which version, and which field of use, it covers. If there is no version, the scope is not invented.
A trade secret can intersect with access being kept closed. A secret does not mean that the compilation is copyright. A password and an authority record look at the administration of the secret. The labour of selection looks at the claim of a work. If the two are mixed in the same petition, the requests are separated. A damages figure is not written in this text. The request depends on the set of proof, and a figure is not invented.
Who built the compilation, who updated it, and who accessed it are three separate records. The founder's name can stand in the contract, the updater's name in the work record, and the name of the person who accessed it on the authority list. If the three lists do not show the same person, the difference is written. The difference does not by itself change the owner of the work. Ownership looks at in whom the labour of selection stands, and at whether the assignment was written. If there is no assignment document, an assignment is not assumed. The document is read as far as which table, and which date, it covers. Rows added later do not enter the old document by themselves. If a mass taken from a source open to the public was presented without the source being shown, the source is looked for separately.
If there is a source register, the name of the register is written. If there is no name, a source is not invented. The labour of selection should be different from lining up the source rows exactly. Lining them up exactly causes the debate on labour to be read from the document. A screenshot does not by itself finish the labour of selection. The date of the image, and which query it was taken from, should be written. If that is not written, a query is not invented. The petition should separate whether it asks for a work or for an investment. If the two requests are crushed into the same sentence, it stays unclear which proof is being looked for. A term is still not added. If the year is not in the file, it is not here either.
How the compilation is separated
The compilation document, the licence contract, and any registry or registration record stand together. The three are not treated as one printout. Counsel in Ankara does not write the address of the Çankaya office in place of the court. The competent authority is read from the dispute's own record. A term is not added so that protection will pass by itself. The district of the office does not change the authority for an intellectual-property dispute. The term is not written in the file. This heading does not put in a year or a day either. A term is read from that sentence only if it is expressly written in the contract.
Neighbouring protections
The copyright in the code is under copyright in software, the general frame of copyright is under copyright, a trade secret is under a trade secret, and assignment of an economic right is under an economic right. These four do not repeat how a database compilation is read. Each looks at its own document.
Conclusion
The question whether database protection is copyright separates the labour of selection from the investment. It is not a monopoly in raw data. A term is not added. The frame is on the intellectual property page, and the basis is the text of Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works. A result on protection is not stated before the contract, the compilation document, and the registry record are seen.