Can a short social media post be a copyrighted work? CJEU judgment of 3 September 2026 in Case C-598/24, CY v Gândul Media Network and HO

The CJEU judgment of 3 September 2026 in Case C-598/24 (CY v Gândul Media Network and HO) addresses two practical questions. The first is the limits of the notion of “work” under Directive 2001/29 as applied to texts published on social networks. The second is how far Member States may shape the exception for reporting on current events (Article 5(3)(c) of the Directive). The Court confirmed that a short social media post can enjoy copyright protection, and clarified which limits a national legislature may and may not impose on the press.

Facts of the case

The parties were CY, a teacher, and Gândul Media Network SRL, operator of a Romanian online daily paper, together with the journalist HO. In September 2021 CY published on her Facebook account a 22-line text entitled “Short guide for parents at the start of the school year’”. In it she stated, in essence, that she did not wish to receive gifts from her pupils’ parents.

A few days later HO published an article on the Gândul website about an „unusual message from a teacher”. He reproduced the entire text of CY’s post without her consent. CY’s name and the source, in the form of a hyperlink to the Facebook page, were added only later.

CY brought an action seeking a finding of copyright infringement and compensation. The lower courts dismissed it, holding that the text could not be protected by copyright. On appeal on a point of law, the High Court of Cassation and Justice in Romania referred two questions to the Court.

• May text posted on a social network expressing an opinion relating to social practices regarded as inappropriate be considered to be a work protected by copyright?
• Does the exception from Article 5(3)(c) of the Directive preclude national legislation which permits the use, for the purpose of reporting current events, only of short extracts from a work and only where such use does not give rise to any direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage?

Judgement

The Court recalled that „work” is an autonomous concept of EU law requiring two cumulative conditions. The subject matter must be original, meaning the author’s own intellectual creation. It must also be identifiable with sufficient precision and objectivity. Originality exists where the subject matter reflects the author’s personality through free and creative choices.

Crucially, the Court held that the length of a text, its publication online and its literary genre are in themselves irrelevant. The exception is where they result from rules, technical considerations or constraints, leaving no room for creative freedom. Originality stems from the choice, arrangement and combination of words. The Court therefore answered that a text expressing an opinion on social practices, published on a social network, is a work provided it is an expression of intellectual creation reflecting the author’s personality. The assessment in a given case is for the national court, although the Court signalled that CY appeared to have made free and creative choices here.

As regards the second question referred for a preliminary ruling, following Spiegel Online, the Court recalled that „reporting” means giving information about an event without any need for a detailed analysis. A „current event” is one that, at the time of reporting, answers the public’s interest in information. The Court did not rule out that an online newspaper’s reproduction of such a text could amount to reporting on a current event. The functioning of the school system is a topic of public interest, and recipients need not be called upon to react or debate.

As regards the limits of the discretion enjoyed by the Member States, the Court held that Article 5(3)(c) does not fully harmonise the exceptions it contains, so Member States have considerable discretion. That discretion is limited in four ways. Member States must stay within the limits set by EU law and respect proportionality. They may not undermine the Directive’s objectives (a high level of protection for authors and the functioning of the internal market), while also ensuring the exception’s effectiveness (effet utile). They must comply with the three-step test in Article 5(5) (those exceptions or limitations may be applied only in certain special cases, that they do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and that they do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the copyright holder). And they must strike a fair balance between fundamental rights protected by the Charter.

The Court held that it is permissible to limit the press exception to the use of only short excerpts of a work, excluding its reproduction in full. The provision sets no formal length limit but requires use „to the extent justified by the informatory purpose”. Freedom of information and of the press (Article 11 of the Charter) does not require publication of a work in full in every case, and limiting use to extracts sufficient for the purpose does not undermine the exception’s effectiveness. Moreover, except for a text so short that using extracts is impossible, reproducing a work in full may impair its normal exploitation. Such reproduction substitutes for the original making available and relieves audiences of the need to consult it. The condition is that the limitation is proportionate and consistent with the exception’s purpose.

The Court ruled that the general prohibition on deriving a direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage has no basis in the wording of the provision, since „to the extent justified by the informatory purpose” relates solely to the scope of use of protected works. Press organisations, in informing the public and scrutinising public actors, typically also carry on the economic activity needed to function. An undefined prohibition therefore undermines the exception’s effectiveness and disturbs the balance between intellectual property (Article 17 of the Charter) and freedom of expression and of the press (Article 11 of the Charter).

Conclusion

The judgment settles two questions with practical consequences. The first concerns the criteria for protection. A work needs not be long or „serious”, and publication on social media does not preclude protection. National courts should therefore avoid deciding on the basis of a post’s form or length alone, and should examine whether the author could make free, creative choices.

The second issue requires a more in-depth analysis. The Court accepted limiting the exception to short excerpts of a work, but rejected the criterion of commercial benefit. This criterion is used in many legal systems as a means of distinguishing journalistic activity from the mere exploitation of third-party works. However, with regard to the press, which by its very nature engages in economic activity, applying such a criterion would deprive the exception of its effectiveness.At the same time, the question remains open as to how, in practice, to determine the “limits justified by the purpose of providing information.” The Court did not formulate any clear criteria in this respect, stating only that the use of a work in its entirety is permissible solely in exceptional circumstances, where the text is so short that using only excerpts proves impossible. Against this background, it will be interesting to see how the Romanian court assesses whether CY’s 22-line text satisfies this condition.