Filming or photographing in public places in Türkiye is not banned as such. It becomes a crime when it intrudes on someone's private life: Article 134 of the Penal Code, Law No. 5237, punishes violation of privacy with 1 to 3 years, doubled when done by recording images or sounds, and disclosure with 2 to 5 years. Recording a non public conversation is punished under Article 133. Posting identifiable people online also leaves the household exception of Law No. 6698 (KVKK). Filming police on duty is not prohibited by statute.
Phones have turned every street in Türkiye into a potential film set. Foreign residents and visitors record arguments with taxi drivers, film neighbours during a dispute, post street interviews to social media, keep dashcams running and, increasingly, film police officers during an incident. Most of this is lawful. Some of it is a criminal offence carrying a prison sentence of several years, and the line between the two is not where many people from common law countries expect it to be. Turkish law has no general rule that whatever happens in a public place may be freely recorded and published. Instead, the Turkish Penal Code protects private life and private conversations wherever they occur, and the Law on the Protection of Personal Data adds a separate layer once images are shared. This article explains Articles 133 and 134 of the Penal Code, when the personal data law applies to individuals, what the position is when filming police, what changes when you post online, and when a recording can be used as evidence.
There is no statute in Türkiye that prohibits taking photographs or videos in public places as such. A tourist filming the Galata Bridge at sunset, with hundreds of passers by in the frame, commits no offence. The legal risk comes from four directions, each governed by a different provision:
The questions that decide most cases are therefore not "was it a public place?" but "what did the recording focus on?", "was it a private conversation?" and "what did you do with it afterwards?".
Article 134(1) punishes any person who violates the confidentiality of another person's private life, özel hayatın gizliliği, with imprisonment from one to three years. Where the violation is committed by recording images or sounds, the penalty is increased by one fold, which in practice means a range of two to six years.
The provision protects private life, not private property. A person sitting in a café, walking with a partner or arguing with a family member on a pavement is in a public place, but parts of what they do there remain part of their private life. The more a recording isolates one identifiable person, follows them, zooms in on their face, body, documents or screen, or captures a moment they plainly did not intend to share, the closer it comes to Article 134. Filming into a home, a hotel room, a changing area or a toilet, even from a public street, is the clearest example. A general shot of a crowd, a street or an event, in which people appear incidentally, is normally outside the provision.
Under Article 26(2) of the Penal Code, no penalty is imposed for an act committed within the consent of the person concerned, in relation to a right over which that person may freely dispose. A person who agrees to be filmed for a street interview has, in principle, consented to that recording. Consent covers only what was agreed, however. Agreeing to be filmed does not necessarily mean agreeing to have the clip posted with a mocking caption to an audience of millions.
Article 134(2), as amended in 2012, separately punishes anyone who unlawfully discloses images or sounds relating to a person's private life with two to five years of imprisonment. Publication through the press or broadcasting attracts the same penalty. Disclosure is a distinct offence: the person who posts a clip can be liable even if someone else recorded it.
Article 133 deals with sound rather than images and turns on whether the conversation was public, aleni.
Listening to, or recording with a device, a non public conversation between other people without the consent of any of them is punished under Article 133(1) with two to five years. Leaving a phone recording in a meeting room after you have left, or recording a couple's quiet conversation at the next table, falls here.
Recording a non public conversation in which you yourself take part, without the consent of the other speakers, is punished under Article 133(2) with six months to two years of imprisonment or a judicial fine. Many foreigners assume that recording their own phone call with a landlord or employer is always permitted, as it is in some legal systems. In Türkiye it is not, unless one of the justifications described in section 8 applies.
Under Article 133(3), unlawfully disclosing data obtained by recording a non public conversation is punished with two to five years of imprisonment and a judicial fine of up to 4,000 days. Article 132 contains parallel rules for written communications: publicly disclosing the content of messages sent to you, without the other party's consent and unlawfully, is punished with one to three years under Article 132(3). Posting screenshots of a private chat therefore carries its own risk.
Under Article 3 of Law No. 6698, personal data means any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person, and processing includes obtaining, recording, storing and disclosing data. A clear image of a face is personal data.
Article 28(1)(a) excludes from the law the processing of personal data by natural persons within activities relating exclusively to themselves or to family members living in the same household, provided the data are not given to third parties and data security obligations are respected. Holiday videos kept on your own phone, or dashcam footage that never leaves the car, normally fall within this exception. Once you post the material publicly or send it to people outside the household, the condition of not giving the data to third parties is no longer met.
Article 28(1)(c) excludes processing for artistic, historical, literary or scientific purposes or within freedom of expression, but only on condition that it does not violate the privacy of private life or personality rights, or constitute an offence. The exception does not protect content that is itself unlawful under Article 134.
Article 17 of Law No. 6698 refers personal data offences to Articles 135 to 140 of the Penal Code. Article 135 punishes unlawfully recording personal data with one to three years, increased by one half for sensitive categories such as health, sexual life, religion or political opinion. Article 136 punishes unlawfully giving, disseminating or seizing personal data with two to four years. The administrative fines in Article 18 of Law No. 6698, for example for failing to inform people about camera recording, are imposed on data controllers, which in practice means businesses, building managements and other organisations running CCTV rather than private individuals filming on the street. The statutory amounts are revalued every year. Our article on penalties for personal data violations and our KVKK guide cover the data controller side in more detail.
The table below summarises how the provisions above usually apply. It is a guide to risk, not a promise of outcome: prosecutors and courts look at the specific footage.
| Situation | Usual Legal Position |
|---|---|
| Wide shot of a street, square, concert or event | Normally lawful; people appear incidentally |
| Street interview with the person's agreement | Lawful within the scope of consent (Article 26(2)) |
| Zooming in on a stranger, following them, filming their body or screen | Risk under Article 134(1), two to six years where recorded |
| Filming into a home, hotel room or changing area from outside | Strong risk under Article 134(1) |
| Secretly recording a private phone call you take part in | Article 133(2), unless a justification applies |
| Recording other people's private conversation | Article 133(1), two to five years |
| Posting someone's private moment or private conversation online | Articles 134(2) or 133(3), two to five years; possibly Article 136 |
| Dashcam footage kept privately | Normally within the household exception of KVKK Article 28(1)(a) |
| Filming police performing duties in public | No statutory ban; limits explained in section 6 |
| Recording a threat or insult as it happens, to prove it | Often accepted as lawful evidence, see section 8 |
No statute prohibits filming police officers or other officials while they perform their duties in a public place. In 2021 the General Directorate of Security issued a circular instructing officers to prevent the audio and video recording of police during operations. According to published reports of the decisions, the Council of State (Danıştay, the highest administrative court) suspended its enforcement in 2021, reasoning that fundamental rights may be restricted only by law and not by a circular, and later annulled it.
That does not mean filming officials carries no risk. The relevant limits are these:
The reverse situation also matters. Where an official records or discloses private information by abusing the authority of his or her office, Article 137 increases the penalty for the offences in Articles 132 to 136 by one half. The same increase applies where the offence is committed by taking advantage of the facilities of a profession, which is relevant to photographers, security staff and technicians. If you are asked to give a statement about footage you took, our article on your rights when giving a police statement explains the procedure.
In our experience, very few complaints concern the act of filming alone. Most are triggered by a post, because publication is what the person filmed sees, and because disclosure offences carry the higher penalties. A recording that might have been tolerated on a phone becomes a disclosure under Article 134(2) or Article 133(3) once posted, and personal data are disseminated within Article 136.
Article 125 punishes attacking a person's honour and dignity, including by imputing a concrete act, with three months to two years or a judicial fine, increased by one sixth where committed publicly. Calling someone a thief, a fraud or worse in the caption of a viral clip adds an insult or defamation exposure to any privacy offence, and insult cannot be resolved through conciliation. For the civil side of reputation disputes, see our article on defamation in Turkish law.
A person who claims that internet content violates his or her private life may apply directly to the authority designated in Article 9/A of the Internet Law, Law No. 5651, for access to the specific URL to be blocked. Access providers must act within four hours, and the applicant must submit the request to the criminal judgeship of peace within 24 hours; the judge decides within 48 hours, failing which the measure lapses. Separately, the general access blocking provision in Article 9 was annulled by the Constitutional Court in a decision of 11 October 2023, so other routes now rely on the remaining provisions and on civil actions. The procedures are explained in our article on access blocking and content removal.
Under Article 24 of the Turkish Civil Code, every infringement of personality rights is unlawful unless justified by consent, an overriding private or public interest, or a legal power. Article 25 allows the person affected to ask the court to prevent a threatened infringement, stop an ongoing one, declare it unlawful and order publication of the judgment, and Article 58 of Law No. 6098 provides for non pecuniary damages. A civil case can be brought at the claimant's own domicile, so a foreign content creator living abroad may still be sued in Türkiye.
Article 217(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Law No. 5271, allows an offence to be proved by any evidence obtained lawfully, and Article 206(2)(a) requires the court to reject evidence obtained unlawfully. Article 189(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Law No. 6100, contains the same rule for civil cases. A secret recording therefore raises two questions: whether making it was a crime, and whether the court may use it.
Turkish case law has developed a narrow exception. Where a person is the victim of an offence such as a threat, insult, blackmail or harassment that is happening at that moment, there is no realistic possibility of calling the authorities in time, and the offence could not otherwise be proved, the Court of Cassation has in a number of decisions accepted the recording as lawful evidence. The courts look at whether the recording was spontaneous and limited to the offence. A recording planned in advance to trap someone into saying something, or a systematic recording of a person over weeks, is generally treated as unlawful. The same reasoning is relevant to evidence of sexual harassment, discussed in our article on Article 105 of the Penal Code.
The exception justifies giving the recording to the prosecutor or the court. It does not justify posting it online. Messages and screenshots raise similar issues, explained in our article on whether WhatsApp messages can be used as evidence in Turkish courts.
Articles 133 to 137 contain no separate aggravation for recording children. In practice, however, images of children are treated with particular care. A child cannot give the kind of consent that Article 26(2) requires on his or her own, so the consent of a parent or guardian is generally needed. Images that show a child's health, school, home or daily routine can reveal far more than an adult's. If the material has any sexual character, entirely different and much more serious offences come into play.
Under Article 139 of the Penal Code, the offences in Articles 132 to 134 are investigated and prosecuted only upon complaint, while unlawful recording of personal data (Article 135), unlawfully giving or seizing data (Article 136) and failure to destroy data (Article 138) are prosecuted by the State of its own motion. Article 73 sets a complaint period of six months from the day the person entitled learned of the act and the identity of the offender.
Because Articles 133 and 134 depend on a complaint, they fall within the scope of conciliation, uzlaştırma, under Article 253(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A conciliator appointed by the prosecutor's office offers the parties a settlement, often an apology, removal of the content and a payment. If the offence was committed together with an offence outside conciliation, such as insult under Article 125, Article 253(3) excludes conciliation. A conviction is not automatic grounds for removal from Türkiye, but Article 54 of Law No. 6458 allows removal of foreigners who are considered a threat to public order, and a criminal file can affect residence or citizenship applications. Our criminal law team represents both complainants and suspects in these proceedings.
Not as such; it becomes an offence when the recording intrudes on a person's private life under Article 134 of the Penal Code or captures a non public conversation under Article 133.
The basic penalty of one to three years is increased by one fold when committed by recording images or sounds, giving a range of two to six years.
Unlawfully disclosing images or sounds of a person's private life is a separate offence under Article 134(2) with two to five years of imprisonment.
Not without the other party's consent, unless you are recording an offence committed against you at that moment; otherwise Article 133(2) provides six months to two years or a judicial fine.
It does not apply to purely personal or household use that is not shared with third parties, but posting identifiable images publicly takes you outside that exception.
Keeping dashcam footage privately is generally lawful; publishing identifiable people or plates from it requires the same care as any other footage.
No statute prohibits filming officers performing duties in public, but you must not obstruct them, insult them or disclose the identity of officers involved in counter terrorism work.
Only lawfully obtained evidence may be used; courts accept spontaneous recordings of an offence against the victim where there was no other way to prove it, but not planned recordings.
There is no separate statutory aggravation, but a child cannot consent alone, so the consent of a parent or guardian is generally needed before focusing on or publishing a child.
Yes for Articles 132 to 134, within six months of learning of the act and the offender; offences under Articles 135 and 136 are prosecuted without a complaint.
Offences under Articles 133 and 134 are subject to conciliation, which can end the case if the parties agree, unless an offence such as insult was committed together with them.
You can apply under Article 9/A of Law No. 5651 for access to the URL to be blocked, submit the request to a criminal judgeship of peace within 24 hours, and also bring civil and criminal proceedings.
Yes, under Articles 24 and 25 of the Civil Code and Article 58 of the Code of Obligations you may claim non pecuniary damages and an order stopping the infringement.
Not automatically; removal under Article 54 of Law No. 6458 requires a separate assessment, for example that the person is a threat to public order, but a criminal case can affect residence files.
Turkish law does not prohibit filming in public, but it protects private life and private conversations even in public places. Articles 133 and 134 of the Penal Code punish intrusive recording and recording of non public conversations, the penalties rise sharply once material is disclosed, and posting identifiable people online also brings in Articles 135 and 136 and Law No. 6698. Filming police performing their duties is not banned, but obstruction, insult and exposing officers in counter terrorism roles are. A recording made as a victim to prove an offence can be lawful evidence, yet the same recording posted on social media can become an offence of its own.
If you have been filmed or posted without your consent, or you face a complaint over footage you recorded, the six month complaint period and the possibility of conciliation make early advice worthwhile. To discuss your situation in English, contact our legal team.
