Founder
August 4, 2025
33 min read
Individuals who share course videos on platforms like YouTube, Udemy, and Instagram are not legally considered official "teachers" or "instructors." The title "teacher" generally refers to individuals appointed to formal educational institutions affiliated with the Ministry of National Education (MEB) or the Council of Higher Education (YÖK). Individuals who present educational content on digital platforms, unless they are subject to an official appointment or have pedagogical formation certification, are in the position of independent content creators before the law. These individuals may be considered private/freelance educators, but they do not hold the status of a teacher within the meaning of MEB legislation. Therefore, not all instructional content offered on the internet is automatically considered an official "educational activity."
Formal education encompasses formal learning activities that provide MEB or YÖK-approved diplomas and certificates (for example, schools, universities, MEB-affiliated courses). In contrast, educational content provided individually through platforms is in the nature of private activities without official recognition. This means a YouTube video or a Udemy course is not recognized by the relevant ministry and does not provide a diploma or an official certificate. Even if a content creator offers a paid course, this is only considered private education for personal development or hobby purposes. However, legal problems may arise if the content provided is presented in a way that substitutes for formal education or is promoted as if it were part of an official program.
Activities such as exam preparation or school curriculum completion, if conducted without the necessary permits, are described as "unlicensed" education. Indeed, the MEB has warned parents by emphasizing that entities providing online high school/university preparatory courses under that name without an institutional license are engaged in unauthorized activity.
In summary, digital content creators do not have official teacher status, and the education they provide is not an activity recognized by public authorities (see Section 6 on Formal Educational Recognition). This situation means that certain obligations to which official teachers are subject (e.g., pedagogical formation, MEB appointments) will not apply to content creators, but on the other hand, it also means they cannot benefit from the legal protection and recognition provided by formal educational institutions.
Are course videos, PDF notes, and presentations covered by copyright? Yes – in Turkey, according to the Law on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK), any expressed work of an original and creative nature benefits from copyright protection.
Content such as course videos, written course notes, and slides created by an instructor qualifies as a scientific and literary work or a cinematographic work and is protected under the FSEK. Indeed, according to Udemy's content guide, the moment original course content is created, the copyright for that content belongs to the person who produced it. This copyright entails exclusive rights that make the copying, reproduction, and online sharing of the content, etc., subject to obtaining permission. Therefore, digital educational content cannot be published or shared elsewhere without the creator's permission.
Generally, no – the content creator retains the copyright. The user agreements of most digital platforms explicitly state that the instructor/creator retains ownership of their content. For example, the terms of the Udemy platform can be expressed as, "If you upload content to our platform, you retain ownership; Udemy receives permission (a license) to use and share this content, but you do not lose your ownership rights." This means that when a video is uploaded to YouTube, Udemy, or Instagram, the copyright is not transferred to the platform – the content creator continues to be the author of the work. However, a broad usage license is granted to the platform when the content is uploaded. For example, in the Udemy agreement, instructors grant the platform a license that includes the rights to use, reproduce, publish, distribute, and modify the content worldwide, in a transferable and royalty-free manner. Similarly, on YouTube, users, by uploading their videos, grant YouTube and its sublicensees permission to host, transmit, preview, and use the video for advertising purposes. This license grant is not a transfer of the copyright itself, but the platform obtaining the necessary permission to publish the content and, when required, to promote/edit it. For example, Udemy can share an instructor's course as an advertisement on other websites or change the video resolution for technical reasons – these are possible within the scope of the granted license. The instructor, on the other hand, is authorized to sell or continue using their own content on other platforms if they wish (as a rule, the license is non-exclusive).
Digital content creators can resort to legal remedies under the FSEK and international copyright regulations if their works are used or copied without permission. Firstly, most platforms offer notification mechanisms against infringement. For example, Udemy's Copyright Policy states that if a user believes their own work has been published on Udemy without permission, they can request the removal of the content from the platform by sending a notice in the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) format. Similarly, YouTube has Content ID and copyright infringement notification tools; the content owner can request the removal of the video or that its revenue be directed to them.
Legally, according to FSEK Art. 68 et seq., the content creator can file a lawsuit to stop the infringement, block access to their work, and demand compensation for the damages suffered. If the infringement is intentional and has a commercial dimension, criminal sanctions (imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years and a judicial fine) under FSEK Art. 71 may also be applicable. For example, the unauthorized recording and sharing on another platform of a course that an instructor sells for a fee on Udemy is a copyright infringement; in this case, the instructor can send a takedown notice, if necessary, request a preliminary injunction from the court to stop the publication, and file a lawsuit for material and moral damages. In practice, the most common problem faced by content creators is such pirated sharing, and rights holders should take action to have the content removed and to prevent damages as soon as they detect it. In conclusion, digital course content is under copyright protection, and content creators have the opportunity to defend their copyright both through the platforms and directly through the judicial system.
Regarding the taxation of the income of digital content creators, the income tax legislation provides for different categories based on the nature of their activities. Classically, when a person offers their own knowledge and skills based on personal labor rather than capital, it can be considered a "self-employment activity" (Income Tax Law [GVK] Art. 65). For example, an author's royalty income or a consultant's earnings can be assessed as self-employment income. Initially, there were opinions that YouTubers or online educators should also be considered self-employed professionals. However, the Revenue Administration is inclined to view the activity of content creators who earn income continuously and systematically as a commercial activity.
In the practice before 2021, the income of those who earned regular profits from platforms like YouTube and Udemy was subject to the provisions of "commercial income" under GVK Art. 37. When it is considered commercial income, the person is evaluated as if they are operating a "commercial enterprise," and this person can also be deemed a merchant according to the Turkish Commercial Code (TTK). As a consequence of being considered a merchant, obligations such as establishing tax liability, keeping books on an operating account or balance sheet basis, issuing invoices, and submitting Ba/Bs forms may arise. In short, if the earnings of content creators are continuous and at a considerable level, it is likely that they will fall under the commercial income regime rather than self-employment from a tax law perspective. In this case, the content creator should register for tax as if they have established a sole proprietorship, issue an invoice/receipt for the income they earn, and be taxed through a declaration.
Law No. 7338, which entered into force on October 26, 2021, brought a significant change in this area. With an article added to the GVK, earnings obtained from the activity of "social content creation" were made exempt from income tax up to a certain amount. Accordingly, the income earned by individuals who share content such as text, images, sound, and video through social network providers like YouTube, TikTok, and Udemy is exempt from income tax if it does not exceed a specific annual amount. To be eligible for the exemption, it was stipulated that the earnings for the relevant year should not exceed the fourth bracket amount specified in GVK Art. 103 (650,000 TRY for 2021) and that all income must be collected through a bank account in Turkey. In this practice, the content creator opens a special account at a bank to receive platform payments, and the bank withholds income tax from these payments at a rate of 15%. Thus, the income is taxed at the source without being included in an income tax return.
In summary, YouTubers/online educators who earn below a certain income and receive their payments through a bank will be considered to have paid their taxes through the 15% tax withholding and will be relieved of the obligation to file a declaration. This regulation has effectively created a simplified taxation regime. However, for content creators who do not meet the conditions (for example, whose annual earnings exceed the limit or who do not receive their payments through a bank), taxation under the normal procedure continues. In this case, the content creator will file an annual income tax return and pay their tax according to the progressive tariff.
For example, if the earnings exceed the exemption limit, the entire income is declared according to the provisions of commercial income and is taxed in brackets of up to 40%. Furthermore, even for those who benefit from the exemption, the 15% withholding tax deducted from the income is the final tax liability, and if there is no other income, no declaration is filed; however, if the content creator has other commercial/professional earnings independent of this activity, the exemption does not preclude them.
As content creators begin to earn income, they must establish their tax liability and collect their earnings by documenting them. If they are not within a company structure, they generally register for tax by establishing a sole proprietorship. In this context, obligations arise under the Tax Procedure Law, such as issuing an invoice or receipt in exchange for the earnings and, if Value Added Tax (VAT) is applicable, declaring it. (Note: As of 2022, it was debated whether VAT withholding would also be applied in cases where a 15% income tax withholding is applied to the income of social content creators collected through a bank; the Revenue Administration did not exempt these earnings from VAT. Therefore, whether the VAT liability of those earning income under the exemption continues can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The general consensus is that platform revenues may often be subject to VAT, especially if the service is provided in Turkey). From the perspective of the TTK, if the activity of the content creator reaches the scale of a commercial enterprise (systematic income generation, continuous content creation, forming a team, etc.), this person is subject to the provisions for merchants.
Merchants are under obligations such as registering with the Trade Registry, using a trade name, and keeping commercial books. If the content creation is on a smaller scale and qualifies as incidental (non-continuous) income, the tax legislation may also consider it as incidental income (GVK Art. 82), but this situation is exceptional, and regular content income generally includes the element of continuity. In conclusion, content creators are liable for tax and are obliged to declare the income they earn and to issue invoices when necessary. The recently introduced 15% withholding tax exemption for social media influencers has changed the form of taxation but has not completely eliminated the tax responsibility (it has only simplified it). In case of non-compliance with tax legislation, penal sanctions (such as tax loss penalty, procedural irregularity penalty) will also come into play.
Digital educational content platforms (Udemy, Skillshare, YouTube, etc.) regulate the rights and obligations between the platform and the creator in detail through the user agreements they make with content creators. These agreements determine the rights over the content, license terms, the authority to remove/modify content, and the limits of liability. The important points are as follows:
Platform agreements are generally based on a principle such as, "The content is yours, but you grant us certain rights to use the content." For example, in Udemy's Instructor Terms, it is stated, "You retain ownership of the content you upload. We may share and promote your content through any media and method we wish." In practice, this means that the content creator continues to be the copyright holder but grants the platform a broad usage license. Although the scope of the license may vary by platform, it is mostly a worldwide, perpetual (as long as the content remains on the platform), royalty-free, and sublicensable permission.
For example, Udemy contractually reserves the rights to offer the instructor's uploaded course to students on its own site, to distribute it through any type of media, to use it in promotional materials, and to make edits to it if necessary. The content creator, on the other hand, has the right to sell or use their work elsewhere unless otherwise agreed (platforms like Udemy generally receive a non-exclusive license, but some platforms may request that the content be exclusively on their site for a certain period – this situation must be clearly specified in the agreement).
In platform agreements, the platform has the authority to remove content or terminate an account in certain situations. In particular, content that violates the terms of use, infringes on copyright, or is found to be inappropriate can be deleted by the platform. From the instructor's perspective, there is generally the option to voluntarily remove their course from the platform; however, if there are students who have previously enrolled in the removed content, most platforms may continue to make the content accessible to registered users to protect their "lifetime access" right, rather than completely deleting it. Indeed, Udemy generally grants students a lifetime access license but reserves the right to revoke this access for legal or policy reasons (for example, copyright complaints, content takedown requests).
The instructor cannot demand compensation from the platform for such content removals as per the agreement; the platform reserves the authority to "terminate the service or remove content for any reason" in its general provisions and is not held liable for any damages arising therefrom. Therefore, the content creator must be careful not to violate the platform's terms. Otherwise, their course may be taken down without notice, or their account may be closed.
Although platforms publish the uploaded content as is, the agreements generally state that the platform can make necessary technical or limited editorial changes to the content. For example, Udemy explicitly states that it receives the right to "make such edits or modifications as we see fit to the published content." These types of changes are generally minor and for quality control or policy compliance purposes (such as adding subtitles, correcting cover images, or title standards). The instructor is considered to have given prior consent to such changes as per the agreement, provided that the essence of their course is not altered. Additionally, instructors can also make changes like updating their own content or adding/removing lessons; platforms generally allow this because keeping courses up-to-date is positive for both the instructor and the platform.
User agreements may permit the platform to share content with business partners, affiliated companies, or on sub-platforms. For example, Udemy reserves the right in its agreement to publish content on websites or applications belonging to different companies (a partner network) and to share it on other media such as television. This way, for instance, an instructor's course can be included in a corporate training package or an international platform integration without requiring extra permission. Since the instructor accepts these conditions from the outset, they cannot later say, "they put my content on this site without my permission," as the user agreement covers this. On the other hand, platforms generally do not sell or transfer the content to third parties in a manner that would infringe the content creator's copyright; they only share it for promotional or distributional purposes within the platform's ecosystem. If a platform licenses the instructor's content to a third party in a way not specified in the agreement, this could be a breach of contract, and the creator can take legal action. However, the terms on common platforms regulate these situations in detail.
The instructor also undertakes a series of obligations through the platform agreement. Examples include clauses such as: guaranteeing that the content is original and legal (not using copyrighted materials belonging to others without permission), adhering to student codes of conduct, meeting certain quality standards, and not deceiving the platform or users. For example, Udemy's Instructor Rules require that the content uploaded by the instructor does not infringe on the intellectual property rights of third parties; otherwise, consequences can range up to the removal of the course and the termination of the account. Again, for student satisfaction, platforms may apply refund policies in certain situations and can deduct refunds from the instructor's earnings (at Udemy, the course fee for a student who receives a refund within 30 days is deducted from the instructor).
The instructor is deemed to have accepted these policies. Platform agreements generally also prohibit the instructor from communicating with students outside the platform to make sales or from using students' personal data for off-platform purposes (e.g., Udemy contractually invalidates an instructor selling a direct license/access to students; all sales must be through the platform). In short, as long as the content creator complies with the platform rules, they retain the copyright over the content but have granted the platform permission for its use within the specified scope. The platform, in turn, fulfills its obligations such as hosting, marketing, and providing the technical infrastructure, and intervenes against violations (copyright complaints, inappropriate content) when necessary. All these matters are detailed in the user agreements, and the parties are obliged to comply with this agreement.
When preparing or presenting digital educational content, the provisions of the Law on the Protection of Personal Data (KVKK) must also be taken into account. Especially when the content includes images, sounds, or other personal data belonging to third parties, the consent of the data subject and processing in compliance with the KVKK is a fundamental requirement.
If educational videos or materials contain personal data such as the faces, voices, or names of students, assistants, or other individuals, the use of this data without their explicit consent may violate the KVKK. According to the assessment of the KVKK Board, image and sound recordings can even fall within the scope of biometric data (since face and voice recordings serve to identify a person, they are considered special categories of personal data). Pursuant to Article 6 of the Law, special categories of personal data cannot be processed without the explicit consent of the data subject. For this reason, for example, if you want to record a Zoom lesson and then publish it, you must obtain informed explicit consent from the participants regarding the recording of their image/sound. "Unless mandatory, audio and video recordings should not be made in online meetings; if they are to be made, the explicit consent of the participants must be obtained."
In practice, this can be done by informing participants at the beginning of the lesson that a recording will be made and obtaining their approval, or by having them sign a written/approved consent form. Otherwise, a person who appears in a lesson video that was recorded and published without their knowledge can file a data breach complaint under the KVKK. It should also be noted that parental consent will be required if the images of children are involved.
The recording and subsequent sharing of sessions held on online conference/lesson platforms (Zoom, Google Meet, etc.) require attention from a KVKK perspective. If only the instructor themselves is visible in the lesson and there is no third-party data, you are free to publish your own image. However, most of the time, the names, voices, videos, or chat messages of the participants are included in the recording. In this case, prior explicit consent must be obtained from the participants. For example, if you want to upload a Zoom lesson to Udemy, you must obtain permission from each of the participating students, such as "This lesson will be recorded and published on an educational platform, do you consent?" According to the KVKK, consent must be related to a specific subject, based on information, and given of free will. Furthermore, the secure storage of the recorded images/sounds is also the responsibility of the data controller (KVKK Art. 12). If Zoom is used as the platform, considering that Zoom's data centers are located abroad, storing the recordings in the cloud could also mean a transfer of data abroad; for this, separate explicit consent may be required pursuant to KVKK Art. 9. Given these technical details, the ideal is not to record lessons unless necessary; if it is necessary, to implement comprehensive consent and strong protection.
When selling a paid course or maintaining a subscriber list, a content creator is in the position of processing the personal data of their customers/students. For example, although information such as the name and email address of someone who purchases a course on Udemy is not made available to the instructor (Udemy restricts this), some platforms may show instructors the students' names, progress, etc. Additionally, if the content creator sells through their own site, they will collect the users' registration information. In this case, the content creator, acting as a data controller according to the KVKK, must comply with all obligations: informing users about the purpose for which their personal data is collected (KVKK Art. 10), obtaining their consent if necessary (especially for matters like marketing/email permissions), storing the data securely (KVKK Art. 12), and not sharing it with third parties or sharing it only to the extent permitted by law. For example, if credit card information is collected in a paid membership system, it is necessary to work with third-party payment providers and to retain minimal data. If you want to send advertising newsletters to subscribers' email addresses, you are also required to obtain separate approval under the Law on the Regulation of Electronic Commerce. Under the KVKK, the data of content purchasers should only be used in a manner limited to the purpose (e.g., to provide access, for invoicing) and unnecessary data should not be collected (KVKK Art. 4 – the principle of minimality).
Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that data controllers of a certain size have an obligation to register with VERBİS; a content creator's business may be exempt from this obligation if it has fewer than 50 employees and a turnover of less than 25 million TRY, but the exemption may be lifted if special categories of personal data are processed. For example, a psychological counseling content platform that collects clients' health data must register with VERBİS. In conclusion, the content creator must not use their subscribers' data for purposes other than providing an educational service, must obtain explicit consent if necessary, and must in any case take the necessary technical-administrative measures to protect the data. Otherwise, high administrative fines and sanctions from the KVKK Board may come into question.
As a rule, online educational content on digital platforms is not considered a formal educational activity by the Ministry of National Education (MEB) or the Council of Higher Education (YÖK). This means that a person teaching a physics lesson on YouTube or offering a Python training on Udemy is neither considered a school/institution subject to the MEB curriculum, nor are they conducting a YÖK-approved diploma program. This situation has various legal repercussions:
The education provided by an online content creator is not equivalent to a formal diploma or certificate. The MEB or YÖK do not convert these trainings, which are conducted outside their supervision, into official documents. For example, even if a student receives an "Excel Course" certificate from Udemy, this document is not considered official like a certificate from an MEB-affiliated public education course; it does not provide any formal equivalence or academic credit. Universities do not include courses taken from the internet, outside of their own approved distance education programs, on official transcripts. In short, digital courses are valuable within the scope of hobbies or personal development and do not substitute for formal education.
The critical point here is whether the content creator's activity falls within the scope of Law No. 5580 on Private Educational Institutions. This law regulates private educational institutions (private schools, courses, tutoring centers, etc.) that operate with a permit from the MEB. If a person or organization systematically provides lessons to students within the framework of a specific educational program and issues documents such as diplomas/certificates, or organizes courses aimed at the school curriculum, this activity may be subject to licensing as a private educational institution.
Exam preparation courses are particularly included in this scope. In recent years, the MEB has identified and applied sanctions against some individuals who, under the license of a "personal development course," were actually providing university preparatory lessons, or who opened online courses without any license at all. In 2023, the MEB made a public announcement warning parents that "structures providing online university/preparatory courses under that name without an institutional permit are unauthorized, and parents should not trust them." This shows that opening courses aimed at formal education without an official permit is against the law. If a content creator's activity falls into this definition, MEB inspections could result in the closure of the relevant sites, the imposition of administrative fines, or the filing of a criminal complaint with the prosecutor's office. For example, if a company organizes online mathematics courses for high schools and issues certificates without an MEB license, it has taken on the risk of closure and fines.
On the other hand, purely individual and one-off educational content (for example, a free educational series on YouTube, or a hobby course open to general participation on Udemy) is generally not considered a "private educational institution." The criterion here is whether the activity has become an institutionalized educational service.
If elements such as continuity, organization, following a specific teaching program, and using official titles are present, the MEB may want to subject it to licensing. Otherwise, individuals sharing knowledge/experience over the internet is generally free and falls within the scope of the constitutional freedom of expression and freedom to work. However, the line is not always clear: for example, if you establish a platform under the name "Online Academy" and start offering courses with various instructors, the MEB could claim that it is an unlicensed private educational institution. Indeed, in the past, some online course initiatives were shut down because they provided academic lessons while presenting their field of activity as "personal development."
It is legally possible for content creators to issue a "certificate of achievement" in their own name at the end of a course, but this carries certain risks. Firstly, such certificates do not have formal validity; they are merely a certificate of participation at the discretion of the instructor or the platform. There is no harm in this, as many platforms offer completion certificates. The risk lies in claiming that the certificate is MEB-approved or equivalent to a YÖK diploma. The instructor must clearly state that the document they are issuing is not official. Otherwise, issues of unfair competition and deceiving the consumer could arise. For example, if a course is sold with the promise of a "100% job-guaranteed, internationally valid certificate," and in reality, this certificate is not affiliated with any official body, this advertisement could be found to be deceptive.
The Ministry of Trade's Advertising Board could impose a fine in this case. Furthermore, an instructor using the logo of a state institution, a university emblem, etc., on their certificate could also constitute the crime of forging an official document. According to the Turkish Penal Code, it is a crime to assume an official title without authority or to produce an official document (e.g., issuing a fake diploma is a serious crime). Therefore, content creators should be very careful when issuing their own certificates, specifically stating that they are only in the nature of a "certificate of participation" and do not provide a formal qualification. For example, a note such as, "This certificate shows that you have completed the X Topic Course; it is not MEB-approved," could be included.
For an online content activity to be considered formal education by the MEB or YÖK, the content creator must either obtain a permit as an institution, or the content must be offered as part of a formal program. For example, some universities can grant credits to students through approved distance education programs; these programs are conducted under the supervision of YÖK and result in an official certificate/diploma at the end. It is not possible for an individual content creator to go down this path on their own; however, it can be done in collaboration with an educational institution.
On the MEB side, those who wish to open a private course must meet certain conditions (teaching staff, physical space standards, curriculum approval, etc.). For the online environment, the MEB issued a directive on distance learning courses in the 2020s, paving the way for face-to-face courses to offer online lessons. But it is still practically very difficult for individual content creators to fall under this scope. In conclusion, within the current legislative framework, the trainings on platforms like YouTube/Udemy are not considered formal educational activities, and those who offer them are not considered official "teachers." This situation does not prohibit such content, but it remains an unsupervised/private activity in the eyes of official authorities. Users should also be aware of this and should keep in mind that the certificates they obtain from these trainings do not have a formal equivalent.
Digital educational content creators bear responsibility within the framework of general principles of law for the accuracy of the information they provide and the statements they make. Although platforms do not guarantee the accuracy of the content (for example, Udemy does not provide a warranty regarding the reliability, accuracy, or verifiability of courses and states that students use the content entirely at their own risk), this situation does not completely absolve the content creator of responsibility. Various potential liability situations are discussed below:
If a content creator misleads users by providing incorrect information on their subject and this results in damage, legal liability may arise under general provisions. Pursuant to Art. 49 of the Turkish Code of Obligations, a person who causes damage to another through a faulty and unlawful act is obliged to compensate for this damage. For example, if a finance/education content creator gives wrong guidance about the stock market and causes people to lose money, those who have suffered losses can claim compensation under tort liability. However, a distinction is made between providing "general educational information" online and one-on-one consulting; merely incorrect general advice may not always lead to liability, as users also have their own free will. Nevertheless, if there is blatant and gross negligence in the misinformation (for example, giving completely erroneous information on a medical topic and risking people's health), the creator can be held responsible for undertaking such a task without being an expert. It should not be forgotten that platforms generally shift the responsibility to the content owner: for example, the user agreements of YouTube or Udemy do not guarantee the accuracy of the content and do not hold themselves responsible in disputes arising from it. Therefore, if a student is to claim that they have suffered material/moral damage due to an online course they have taken, their direct counterpart will be the content creator.
Individuals who offer paid educational content are in the position of "service providers" under the Law No. 6502 on the Protection of the Consumer. Accordingly, the advertisements, commercials, and promises they make are binding. If an instructor makes a specific promise when selling a course (for example, "those who finish this course will speak English in 3 months") and this promise turns out to be unfounded in a way that does not meet a reasonable student's expectation, it may be considered a defective service. In this case, the consumer can demand a refund or compensation for damages. In fact, if it is a case of misleading advertising, a complaint to the Ministry of Trade can lead to the advertisement being stopped and an administrative fine being imposed.
For example, if a Udemy course states, "you will become a professional from scratch 100%," but the content turns out to be very superficial, the consumer can request a refund, alleging defective performance. This is why it is important for instructors to be honest and transparent in their course descriptions; otherwise, the platform may remove the course to protect its reputation, and they may have to deal with legal processes.
Obvious errors in educational content are unlikely to be subject to legal sanctions, but they can lead to reputational damage and user complaints from a pedagogical perspective. If the content is specifically aimed at children, a separate duty of care arises. Content that is inappropriate for children or harmful to their development may attract the attention of institutions such as the Ministry of Family and Social Services and RTÜK (Radio and Television Supreme Council). For example, if an online educational video contains elements that are frightening to young viewers or include violence, the content may be found objectionable under Law No. 5651, and an access block or an administrative fine may be imposed. As for the issue of abuse: any kind of exploitation, harassment, or misuse that may occur in interactions between the instructor and students (especially in live classes or mentoring) can have serious consequences. If an instructor is communicating one-on-one with minors, care should be taken regarding criminal records, etc. (even though they are an independent content creator, in such cases, criminal law comes into play).
One of the most significant risks is providing unauthorized education or consultancy in a field that legally requires a license. For example, content related to medical treatment or of a psychotherapeutic nature must only be provided by professionals with the relevant license. As for the question of "a non-psychologist giving personal development training": since personal development is a broad field, anyone can provide training on topics like motivation, time management, and communication skills; this is not subject to a special license. However, if a person in this training enters the domain of the science of psychology and acts with claims of psychotherapy, trauma treatment, or depression treatment, issues of unauthorized provision of health services or the unlawful use of the title of psychological counselor may arise. In Turkey, at least a bachelor's degree is required for the title of "psychologist"; the titles "specialist psychologist/psychiatrist" require more advanced education and licensing.
A person without these titles cannot present themselves as such; otherwise, under TCK Art. 262, usurpation of title or unlawful use of a title may be in question. Furthermore, according to Law No. 1219 on the Practice of Medicine and Medical Arts, it is a crime to diagnose/treat without the title of a physician – if health advice or treatment methods are given under the guise of personal development, it can be considered a violation of this law. For example, a non-dietitian preparing detailed diet lists and selling a "guaranteed healthy weight loss" course is contrary to the Ministry of Health's regulations. In such cases, the ministry can file a criminal complaint against the person, or professional chambers may react. If the act amounts to fraud (for example, deceiving people with a fake diploma), the TCK crime of fraud is also committed.
In summary, content creators should not make claims that exceed their areas of expertise, should not mislead users, and must be very careful, especially in "sensitive/regulated subjects." An engineer can give basic psychology lessons on the internet, there is no obstacle to this; however, if they say, "I am a psychologist, I will provide you with therapy," a legal risk arises. Similarly, if a yoga instructor makes a bold and medically false claim like, "we can treat cancer," this can lead to liability for both deceiving the consumer and making an unauthorized medical claim. The right of users to resort to legal remedies for damages they have suffered is reserved.
Finally, the terms of use of the platforms do not limit the instructor's responsibility but, on the contrary, emphasize it: platforms generally state that they do not provide any guarantee for the information given by instructors and that users apply this information at their own risk. This indicates that if damage occurs as a result of a wrong application, the responsibility may lie with the instructor. However, of course, not every mistake leads to compensation or a penalty; for legal liability, the existence of damage, fault, and a causal link are required. Nevertheless, from an ethical and legal standpoint, it is in the content creators' own best interest to produce accurate, reliable content and to know their limits. Otherwise, both legal problems and a loss of reputation may be experienced in the long run.
