EditWhat the press can reuse from Facebook without author’s consent, after a recent EU court ruling
What counts is how the material is used and how much is reproduced. Quoting a text to inform the public can fall within a legal exception
A short Facebook post about gifts for teachers sparked a years-long copyright fight. On 3 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that such a text can be protected by copyright even if it is brief and published on a social network.
The case started in Romania. In 2021, teacher Ioana Turcu posted on Facebook about the start of the school year and the gifts parents want to give teachers. The post spread. Some outlets asked her permission. The media outlet Gândul published the text without asking.
When she challenged the reporter, she was told Facebook is the public domain and anyone can take anything. With her husband, intellectual-property lawyer Gabriel Turcu, she took the question to court.
Lower Romanian courts rejected her claim. The Bucharest Tribunal said the post lacked originality and was mainly a teacher’s personal complaint. The Bucharest Court of Appeal agreed that it did not rise above ordinary speech about school practices. The High Court of Cassation and Justice then asked the CJEU for guidance.
One question was whether a short social-media text expressing an opinion on a social issue can be a protected work. On 3 September 2026, in case C-598/24, the CJEU said yes. Length and the fact of publication on Facebook do not strip copyright protection if the text is the author’s own intellectual creation and reflects free, creative choices.
Publishing on Facebook is not a waiver of rights.
The second part of the ruling matters as much for newsrooms. EU law allows protected works to be used, under conditions, to report current events. Copyright is not a veto over every journalistic use. Quoting a text to inform the public, comment, or explain an event can fall within a legal exception.
What counts is how the material is used and how much is reproduced. There is no fixed percentage. Courts look at purpose, proportionality, and the other conditions of the exception. In Turcu’s case the post was taken in full. That does not automatically mean Gândul infringed, but the Romanian courts must now apply the CJEU’s principles and ask whether full reproduction was necessary for the article’s informational purpose.
Gabriel Turcu’s summary: you do not need consent when you quote or when you inform the public. You do need it if you simply republish someone else’s work as your own. The same logic applies as to a song or a newspaper article copied in full.
The CJEU also answered a Romanian-specific question: whether the “informing the public” exception can be denied just because the user has a commercial purpose. EU law does not allow an automatic ban on that ground. An outlet can run ads or subscriptions and still rely on the exception when the use is genuinely for public information. Commercial character alone does not make the use lawful – or unlawful.
The same distinction applies to politicians. A president’s or minister’s post is not public domain. The press may use it when the person is the news and the use is quotation or reporting. Republishing the text as content of its own still requires permission unless an exception applies.
Ioana Turcu says the case became less about her post and more about the rule for everyone who publishes online. She would have agreed if Gândul had asked. Sharing a post is one thing; putting it on a news site without asking is another.
The CJEU did not rule that Gândul infringed and did not award damages. It answered questions of interpretation. The file now returns to Romania’s Supreme Court.
For the Turcus, the point was to clarify the concepts: social-media posts can be copyright works; the press can still quote and report without asking every time; wholesale republication is not the same as citation.
The article in Romanian by EUalive’s partner PressOne can be found here.
Caption: The Court of Justice of the European Union in Luxembourg [Website of the CJEU]
Updated: September 24, 2026 - 10:18
