AI Services Agreement in Turkey: Who Owns the Data, Outputs and Intellectual Property? (2026 Updated Guide)

Who owns data, AI-generated outputs and intellectual property under an AI services agreement in Turkey? Key contract clauses for companies, foreign investors, SaaS providers and AI developers explained.

Artificial intelligence services are increasingly incorporated into software, customer-service systems, analytics platforms, content production, financial processes, recruitment, manufacturing and corporate decision-making. Yet many businesses enter into AI services agreements without clearly determining one of the most commercially important questions: who owns the customer’s data, AI-generated outputs, software, prompts, models and intellectual property created or used during the relationship? In Turkey, these questions cannot safely be resolved by inserting a single sentence stating that “all AI outputs belong to the customer.” Copyright law, contractual rights, personal-data obligations, confidentiality, database rights, trade secrets, third-party licenses and the technical architecture of the AI system may all affect the answer. A properly drafted AI services agreement should therefore separate each category of data, technology and output and allocate rights expressly.

Why AI Services Agreements Require Special Intellectual Property Clauses

Traditional software agreements generally distinguish between the supplier’s pre-existing software and the customer’s data. AI systems make this structure considerably more complicated because the service may process customer information, generate new material, incorporate third-party technology, use external models and potentially improve through interaction with customer data.

The agreement should consequently avoid treating “data,” “content,” “output,” “software” and “intellectual property” as interchangeable concepts.

Start by Defining the Technology

Before negotiating ownership, the parties should identify what service is actually being supplied. Is the provider offering access to its own AI model, integrating a third-party model, developing a customized system, providing an AI-enabled SaaS product or training a model specifically for the customer?

Different architectures create different contractual risks.

Customer Data Should Be Defined Separately

The agreement should clearly define information supplied by or on behalf of the customer. This may include business records, documents, databases, images, technical information, customer communications, transaction records and other materials uploaded to the service.

The contract should specify whether ownership remains with the customer and what limited rights the provider receives to process that information.

A License to Process Data Is Not the Same as Ownership

An AI provider normally requires contractual permission to access and process customer data in order to perform the service. That permission does not necessarily require transfer of ownership.

The scope, purpose, duration and termination of the provider’s data-use rights should therefore be expressly defined.

Can the AI Provider Use Customer Data for Model Training?

This is one of the most important provisions in an AI agreement.

The contract should state whether customer data, prompts, uploaded documents, interactions or outputs can be used to train, fine-tune or otherwise improve the provider’s models.

Silence on this issue can create substantial commercial and confidentiality risk.

Training Rights Should Not Be Hidden in General Language

A broad clause allowing information to be used for “service improvement” can create uncertainty about whether the provider may use confidential customer information for model development.

If training is permitted, the agreement should define exactly what information can be used and under what conditions.

Personal Data Requires a Separate Analysis

Contractual ownership does not eliminate obligations concerning personal data. Where an AI service processes personal information, the parties should separately determine their roles and responsibilities under the applicable Turkish data-protection framework.

The agreement should address processing purposes, security, retention, transfers and relevant processor obligations where applicable.

Data Ownership and Data Protection Are Different Questions

A company may contractually control a database without being free to process every piece of personal information contained in it.

AI agreements should therefore avoid language suggesting that “ownership” automatically gives unlimited processing rights.

Who Owns the AI Output?

The contract should specify the commercial allocation of rights in outputs generated for the customer. Depending on the service, outputs can include text, software code, images, reports, designs, predictions, analyses, recommendations and structured datasets.

However, contractual allocation and copyright protection are not necessarily the same issue.

AI Output May Not Automatically Qualify for Copyright Protection

Turkish copyright law is fundamentally structured around intellectual and artistic works connected with human authorship. Consequently, purely machine-generated material may create difficult questions concerning whether copyright protection arises at all.

A contract stating that the customer “owns” an output cannot necessarily create statutory copyright where the legal requirements for copyright protection are absent.

Human Contribution Can Be Important

Where employees, developers, designers or other individuals substantially contribute to the creation and development of material using AI tools, their human creative contribution may become important to the intellectual-property analysis.

Businesses should therefore preserve records of significant human involvement where valuable AI-assisted content is being developed.

Assignment Language Should Be Drafted Carefully

Where transferable intellectual-property rights arise in customized deliverables, the agreement should determine whether those rights remain with the provider, are licensed to the customer or are transferred to the customer.

A vague promise that the customer “owns everything” may be insufficient for sophisticated commercial arrangements.

Separate Background IP From Newly Created IP

The provider may enter the relationship with pre-existing algorithms, software libraries, frameworks, models, documentation and development tools.

These assets can be defined as background intellectual property and distinguished from technology or deliverables developed specifically during the project.

The Customer Should Also Protect Its Background IP

Customers may contribute proprietary databases, workflows, methodologies, specifications, designs, prompts or technical documentation.

The agreement should make clear that providing these materials to the AI supplier does not transfer ownership unless expressly agreed.

What About Customized AI Models?

If the supplier fine-tunes or customizes a model for the customer, the contract should answer several questions: Who owns the resulting customized model? Can the provider reuse the improvements for other customers? Can the customer export or continue using the model after termination? What happens to customer-specific parameters or configurations?

These issues can be commercially more important than ownership of individual outputs.

Model Weights Require Specific Treatment

Where technically relevant, the agreement should determine whether the customer obtains any rights in model weights, adapters, fine-tuning layers or other model components.

Access to an AI service does not necessarily provide ownership or possession of the underlying model.

Prompts Can Have Commercial Value

Sophisticated prompt libraries and workflows may represent significant business know-how even where copyright protection is uncertain.

The agreement should determine whether customer-created prompts remain confidential and whether the provider can reuse them for other clients.

AI Workflows May Be Trade Secrets

A company’s combination of prompts, proprietary datasets, decision rules and business processes can reveal commercially valuable information.

Confidentiality clauses should therefore cover AI workflows rather than focusing solely on source code.

Third-Party Models Create Additional Risk

Many AI providers do not own every component of their service. They may integrate external models, APIs, open-source software or third-party datasets.

The customer should understand which important elements depend on third-party rights.

Flow-Down Terms Should Be Reviewed

If a third-party model provider imposes restrictions on use, output, training or data processing, the AI supplier may need to pass some of those restrictions to the customer.

The main services agreement should not promise rights broader than the provider itself possesses.

Open-Source Components Require Attention

AI systems may incorporate open-source software subject to specific license conditions.

The provider should maintain an appropriate compliance process, particularly where customized software will be distributed or integrated into the customer’s proprietary systems.

Training Data Can Create Intellectual Property Risk

A customer purchasing an AI service may ask whether the provider had lawful rights to use the materials on which the system was developed.

The agreement should allocate responsibility for third-party claims arising from the provider’s technology and training practices to the extent commercially and legally appropriate.

Output Can Resemble Third-Party Material

AI-generated material may occasionally resemble existing content, trademarks, software or other protected material.

Businesses should not assume that an AI-generated output is automatically free from third-party rights merely because the system generated it.

Intellectual Property Indemnities Should Be Negotiated

The contract should address responsibility if the provider’s technology or supplied deliverables allegedly infringe third-party intellectual-property rights.

The scope of any indemnity, exclusions, defense control and liability cap should be negotiated carefully.

Customer Inputs Also Create Risk

The provider may require protection where the customer uploads material that it has no right to use.

Balanced agreements often distinguish claims caused by provider technology from claims resulting from unlawful customer-supplied content.

Confidential Information Must Remain Protected

Customer data entered into an AI system may include trade secrets, strategic plans, source code, contracts, financial information and customer records.

The confidentiality clause should expressly cover information processed through the AI service.

Prevent Cross-Customer Disclosure

The agreement should address technical and contractual safeguards designed to prevent one customer’s confidential information from appearing in another customer’s environment or outputs.

This is particularly important for multi-tenant AI platforms.

Data Segregation May Be Important

Enterprise customers may require information concerning logical segregation, access controls and security architecture.

Highly sensitive deployments may require stronger contractual safeguards than ordinary consumer AI services.

Security Obligations Should Be Specific

The provider’s obligations may include access controls, encryption, incident response, vulnerability management and appropriate personnel restrictions.

Generic language stating that the supplier will use “reasonable security” may be inadequate for sensitive corporate deployments.

Data Breach Procedures Should Be Defined

The agreement should establish notification and cooperation obligations if customer data is accessed, disclosed, altered or lost without authorization.

The parties should also coordinate contractual incident obligations with applicable statutory requirements.

International Data Transfers Must Be Considered

Cloud-based AI infrastructure may process information outside Turkey. The customer should identify where data are stored and processed and whether cross-border transfer requirements apply.

Subcontractors and infrastructure providers should also be considered.

Subprocessors Should Be Addressed

The AI provider may rely on cloud providers, model providers, analytics companies or other subcontractors.

The agreement should determine whether the customer receives information or contractual protections regarding important subprocessors.

Data Retention Should Be Defined

How long does the provider retain prompts, uploaded files, logs and outputs?

The agreement should establish retention rules and distinguish operational backups from actively accessible production data.

What Happens to Data After Termination?

Termination provisions should specify whether customer data can be exported, returned or deleted and within what period.

A company should not discover after termination that its only copy of important AI-generated work remains locked inside the provider’s platform.

Data Portability Can Be Commercially Critical

Enterprise customers should consider whether outputs, configurations and customer-specific datasets can be exported in a usable format.

Vendor lock-in can become a significant problem for customized AI deployments.

Can the Provider Continue Using Aggregated Data?

Some providers request rights to use aggregated or de-identified information for analytics or service improvement.

The agreement should define these concepts carefully and ensure that the resulting information cannot reasonably expose confidential customer information.

Output Accuracy Should Not Be Confused With Ownership

Owning contractual rights in an AI-generated report does not mean that the report is correct.

AI services agreements should separately address performance standards, validation obligations and responsibility for inaccurate or fabricated outputs.

High-Risk Decisions Need Human Oversight

Where AI supports employment, finance, compliance, healthcare, safety or other significant decisions, businesses should determine whether human review and additional controls are required.

The contract should identify whether the AI system merely assists decision-making or is expected to make autonomous determinations.

Service Levels Should Be Separate From IP Rights

Availability, response times, support, model performance and maintenance should be governed through service-level provisions.

A strong IP clause does not protect the customer against an unreliable service.

Model Changes Should Be Controlled

AI providers frequently update models. An update can change performance, outputs, security characteristics or compatibility with customer systems.

Enterprise agreements should consider whether material model changes require notice.

Customer-Specific Development Should Be Clearly Defined

If the customer pays for bespoke features, determine whether those developments are exclusive to the customer or may be incorporated into the provider’s general product.

This should be decided commercially before development begins.

Employee-Created AI Content Requires Internal Rules

Companies using AI should also establish internal policies concerning who may upload information, which AI tools are authorized and how generated content is reviewed.

The supplier contract cannot eliminate risks created by uncontrolled employee use.

Liability Caps Require Careful Negotiation

AI providers commonly seek contractual limitations of liability. Customers should consider whether a general liability cap is appropriate for confidentiality breaches, data-protection violations, intellectual-property claims or serious security incidents.

Different categories of liability may justify different treatment.

Warranties Should Match the Service

The supplier should not promise capabilities the technology cannot realistically provide, while customers should not accept marketing claims as substitutes for contractual commitments.

Define the actual service, permitted use and measurable obligations.

Audit and Compliance Rights May Be Necessary

For high-value enterprise deployments, customers may require information concerning security controls, subprocessors or compliance practices.

The scope should be proportionate to the risk and sensitivity of the service.

Governing Law and Dispute Resolution Matter

Cross-border AI contracts often involve a foreign provider and a Turkish customer. The agreement should determine governing law, jurisdiction or arbitration, notice requirements and enforcement mechanisms.

The parties should also recognize that contractual choice of law does not necessarily eliminate mandatory regulatory obligations applicable in Turkey.

Foreign AI Providers Should Review Their Turkish Contracts

Using a global template without adaptation can leave important Turkish legal issues unresolved.

Foreign providers entering the Turkish market should review intellectual-property language, data-processing provisions, confidentiality, liability and dispute-resolution mechanisms before contracting with local customers.

Turkish Companies Buying Foreign AI Services Should Conduct Due Diligence

The customer should understand where its information goes, which models process it, whether data can be used for training, which third parties participate and what happens if the provider terminates the service.

The lowest subscription price may conceal significant legal and operational risk.

AI M&A Transactions Require Separate Due Diligence

Investors acquiring an AI company should verify whether the target actually owns or controls the technology it claims to own.

Review employee and contractor IP assignments, model licenses, datasets, open-source components, customer contracts and training-data rights.

AI Startup Investment Agreements Should Protect Core Technology

Investors should determine whether intellectual property is held by the company or remains personally owned by founders or developers.

Unclear ownership can materially reduce company value during later financing or acquisition.

2026 Contract Drafting Strategy

An effective AI services agreement should create a clear rights map. It should separately identify customer data, personal data, confidential information, provider background technology, customer background technology, prompts, AI outputs, customized developments, model improvements, third-party technology and aggregated data.

For each category, the agreement should answer four questions: Who owns it? Who may use it? For what purpose? What happens to it when the contract ends?

Frequently Asked Questions

Does the customer automatically own everything generated by an AI service?

No. Contractual rights, copyright protection and third-party rights should be analyzed separately. The agreement should expressly allocate rights in outputs.

Can an AI provider train its model using customer data?

That depends on the contractual terms and applicable legal requirements. Enterprise agreements should address training and model-improvement rights expressly.

Can purely AI-generated content be protected by copyright in Turkey?

Copyright protection can raise significant human-authorship questions. Contractual allocation of an output does not automatically create statutory copyright protection where legal requirements are not satisfied.

Who owns a customized AI model?

The answer depends on the agreement. The parties should expressly address customized models, fine-tuning, customer-specific configurations and underlying provider technology.

Does uploading data to an AI provider transfer ownership?

Not necessarily. The provider can receive a limited processing license while ownership or other underlying rights remain with the customer.

Can the AI provider reuse customer prompts?

The contract should expressly address this. Valuable prompt libraries and workflows may also constitute confidential business information.

Who is responsible if AI output infringes third-party intellectual property?

Responsibility depends on the circumstances and contractual allocation. Provider and customer indemnities should distinguish provider technology from unlawful customer inputs.

What happens to customer data when the agreement terminates?

The contract should define export, return, retention and deletion procedures rather than leaving the issue unresolved.

Should foreign AI providers use their standard global agreement in Turkey?

A global agreement may require adaptation to address Turkish contractual, intellectual-property, data-protection and mandatory regulatory considerations.

What is the most important clause in an AI services agreement?

There is no single ownership clause capable of resolving every issue. The agreement should separately allocate rights concerning customer data, inputs, outputs, background technology, customized developments, training rights, model improvements and third-party technology.

Client-Focused Legal Support for AI Services Agreements in Turkey

AI contracts can create significant disputes concerning data ownership, model-training rights, AI-generated outputs, copyright, software, confidential information, trade secrets, third-party technology, personal data, cybersecurity and liability. Fırat Fesih Kaya Law Office assists foreign technology companies, AI developers, SaaS providers, investors and businesses entering into AI-related commercial agreements in Turkey. Lawyer Fırat Fesih Kaya provides legal assistance in drafting and negotiating AI services agreements, technology licensing contracts, data-processing provisions, intellectual-property clauses, confidentiality agreements, liability structures and cross-border technology transactions.

Phone: +90 312 434 22 22
Mobile: +90 532 769 22 22
Email: info@firatfesihkaya.av.tr
Address: Mevlana Boulevard No:221, Yıldırım Tower, Office No:148, 06520 Balgat, Çankaya, Ankara, Turkey