We publish our thoughts, comment on events and describe our experiences. Sometimes a short Facebook post attracts more attention than a lengthy article. Other users pass it on, and the media use it as the subject of a story. Does the fact that a text is publicly accessible mean that anyone may freely copy it? And should republication, posting a link and clicking “Share” be assessed in the same way?
The CJEU judgment of 3 September 2026 in Case C-598/24, Gândul Media Network, confirms that a social media post may constitute a copyright-protected work. This does not, however, prohibit every reference to someone else’s statement. The way the material is used and the legal basis for that use must be distinguished.
From a teacher’s post to a dispute before the CJEU
The case concerned a Romanian teacher who published a 22-line Facebook post entitled “A short guide for parents at the start of the school year”. In it, she explained that she did not wish to receive gifts from her pupils’ parents.
A journalist reproduced the entire post on the website of the newspaper Gândul without obtaining the author’s prior permission. Her name and a link to the original were added later. The copyright dispute led to questions being referred to the Court for a preliminary ruling.
When does a post qualify as a protected work?
Protection depends on the creative character of the expression. The CJEU referred to the author’s own intellectual creation, expressed in a manner that is sufficiently precise and objective. In a written text, the selection, sequence and combination of words may be relevant. The final assessment of a particular post is a matter for the national court.
Neither a short format, online publication nor the absence of a particular literary genre rules out protection. However, not every post is a protected work. A simple announcement of a meeting time differs from an original commentary using irony, metaphors and a distinctive narrative.
Public access does not mean permission to republish
Being able to read a post does not automatically give you the right to publish a copy. If the text is a protected work, its use requires the right holder’s permission or an appropriate legal basis, such as a statutory copyright exception. Merely naming the author and identifying the source does not provide that basis.
When may the media use a post?
In Case C-598/24, the CJEU also considered the exception for reporting current events under Article 5(3)(c) of Directive 2001/29/EC. Use must be limited to the extent justified by the reporting purpose, and the source and author must be identified unless this is impossible.
Reproducing an entire work will not always be justified. Member States may limit this exception to short extracts, provided that its proportionality and effectiveness are preserved. The commercial nature of a media outlet’s activities does not, in itself, prevent reliance on this exception.
Linking is different from copying
In its judgment of 13 February 2014 in Case C-466/12, Svensson, the CJEU held that linking to works made freely accessible with the right holder’s consent generally does not require additional authorisation. The work is not communicated to a “new public” that was not taken into account when the original communication was authorised.
The position differs where a link enables users to circumvent access restrictions, such as safeguards reserving content for subscribers. Not every hyperlink can therefore be treated as unrestricted, lawful linking.
What about Facebook’s “Share” button?
Posting a link, using a platform’s sharing function and copying text into a new post must be distinguished. For the “Share” function, what matters is how it actually works: whether it maintains a connection to the original and respects access restrictions.
Drawing on the case law on linking, it can be argued that sharing a lawful, public post through a mechanism referring users to the original should be assessed differently from independent republication. This is, however, an application of general principles to a specific platform feature, not a CJEU rule guaranteeing that every click on “Share” is lawful.
For example, providing readers with a link to an original commentary differs from copying the entire commentary and publishing it as a separate post. In the latter case, an independent publication is created which may remain accessible even after the original is deleted.
Republishing downloaded material
This distinction is illustrated by the CJEU judgment of 7 August 2018 in Case C-161/17, Renckhoff. It concerned a photograph copied and uploaded to another website. The Court held that this publication fell within the right of communication to the public, even though the photograph had previously been lawfully available online without restrictions preventing its download. Consent to the first publication therefore does not automatically mean consent to a subsequent one.
A link to an unlawful source can also give rise to liability
In its judgment of 8 September 2016 in Case C-160/15, GS Media, the CJEU explained that, when linking to material published without the right holder’s consent, the knowledge of the person posting the link is relevant.
Where the person acts without a profit-making purpose, consideration must be given to whether they knew or could reasonably have known that the publication was unlawful. Where links are posted for profit, there is a rebuttable presumption of knowledge of the material’s protected status and the possible absence of consent. Appropriate checks are then expected.
What should you check before using someone else’s post?
Before publishing, consider whether you need the author’s exact wording or whether it would suffice to describe the subject in your own words and link to the source. If you plan to reproduce the text, check whether you have permission or meet the conditions of a particular statutory exception. For linking, the lawfulness of the source and any access restrictions are important.
“Copy and paste”, a hyperlink and “Share” may produce a similar result for readers, but they require different legal assessments. Before using another person’s statement, it is therefore necessary to examine what you are actually doing with its content.