On 3 September 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Case C-598/24, Gândul Media Network, following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice.When we first took on the case that would eventually become CJEU Case C-598/24, Gândul Media Network, there was little in its immediate factual or economic stakes to suggest the significance it might ultimately acquire.
The dispute arose from an apparently minor situation: a 22-line text posted on Facebook by a teacher, expressing her views on the practice of parents giving gifts to teachers at the beginning of the school year, was subsequently reproduced in full by an online publication without her prior consent. The significance of the judgment, however, goes far beyond the specific circumstances of the case.
Yet, from an early stage, we had a strong sense that behind an apparently straightforward copyright dispute lay questions with the potential for a much broader doctrinal and jurisprudential trajectory. The case raised issues that went beyond the interests of the parties themselves and touched upon areas of copyright and media law in which greater legal clarity was both necessary and worth pursuing.
We developed the case with the shared conviction that it could provide an opportunity for clarification at EU level. What began as a dispute of seemingly limited economic significance eventually reached the Court of Justice of the European Union and raised fundamental questions concerning the concept of a protected work and originality, the limits of the current-events reporting exception, and the relationship between that exception and the economic reality in which media businesses operate.
The judgment delivered by the Court on 3 September 2026 has, in our view, amply rewarded that joint effort. More importantly, the answers given by the CJEU extend well beyond the particular dispute and provide guidance capable of contributing to the development of both copyright and media law.
For Turcu & Turcu, working together with Baciu & Partners, it has been particularly rewarding to see an apparently modest case develop into an opportunity for clarification of principles with much wider practical and jurisprudential relevance.
The judgment addresses three issues of particular importance: the criteria for identifying a protected work and assessing originality; the compatibility of an absolute national “short extracts” rule with the exception for reporting current events; and the relevance — or, more precisely, the irrelevance as an exclusionary factor — of any direct or indirect economic advantage derived by media undertakings from such uses.
-
Originality remains the decisive criterion: not length, medium of publication or literary genre
As regards the first question, the judgment primarily constitutes a clarification and reaffirmation of the Court’s established case law rather than a doctrinal innovation. It is precisely for that reason, however, that it is useful.
The Court returns to the autonomous concept of a “work” under EU law and reaffirms the two cumulative conditions developed in its case law.
First, the subject matter must be original, in the sense that it constitutes the author’s own intellectual creation. That condition is satisfied where the creation reflects the author’s personality through the exercise of free and creative choices.
Conversely, where the expression is dictated by technical considerations, rules or other constraints that leave no room for creative freedom, the requirement of originality is not satisfied.
Second, the intellectual creation must find expression in subject matter that can be identified with sufficient precision and objectivity. Copyright protects the expression of the intellectual creation, rather than ideas, information or facts as such.
In the case of a text, the assessment therefore concerns the specific expressive choices made by the author — including the choice, sequence and combination of words — and the extent to which those choices allowed the author’s personality and creative freedom to be expressed.
Against this background, the Court expressly excludes several factors that should not distract national courts from applying the correct test.
The length of the text is not determinative. The fact that it was published on a social network is not determinative. Nor is its classification within a predetermined literary genre determinative.
Such factors may become relevant only where, in the specific circumstances, they reflect constraints that effectively eliminated the scope for free and creative choices.
This clarification is important for judicial practice.
The assessment of copyright protection should not begin by searching for the traditional literary or artistic category into which a creation may be classified and only then asking whether it “deserves” protection. The fact that a creation does not belong to a conventional literary genre is not an obstacle to copyright protection.
The relevant question is different: is there an identifiable expression resulting from the author’s free and creative choices?
The judgment is equally useful in dispelling any confusion concerning online publication.
The digital environment is not a “disruptive” form of expression for copyright purposes in the sense that it alters the substantive requirements for protection. A text does not become less capable of copyright protection merely because it is published on Facebook, another social network or any other online platform.
On the contrary, the technological medium through which a creation is communicated or brought to the attention of the public is distinct from the question of whether copyright protection exists. Online publication is simply one of the contemporary means by which an intellectual creation may be expressed and brought to the public’s attention.
Accordingly, even though Gândul Media Network does not establish a new doctrine of originality, it provides welcome guidance for national courts: originality must be sought in the author’s expression and creative choices, not in an artistic label, a minimum length or a particular medium of publication.
-
The exception for reporting current events cannot be reduced to an absolute “short extracts” rule
The second aspect of the judgment has more direct consequences for Romanian law.
Article 5(3)(c) of the InfoSoc Directive permits the use of works or other protected subject matter in connection with the reporting of current events to the extent justified by the informatory purpose.
The architecture of the Directive is therefore functional rather than mechanically quantitative. EU law does not prescribe a fixed number of words, seconds or paragraphs, or a particular percentage of a work that may be used. The relevant measure is determined by the informatory purpose and by what is necessary and proportionate to achieve it.
The Court recognises that Member States enjoy a certain margin of discretion in implementing the exception and accepts that, in principle, they may restrict its application to “short extracts”. That statement cannot, however, be separated from the conditions that the Court immediately attaches to such an option. The national restriction must comply with the principle of proportionality, preserve the effectiveness of the exception and allow its informatory purpose to be achieved.
Thus, although a Member State may use the “short extracts” criterion, it may not turn that criterion into an absolute rule that renders the exception ineffective in circumstances where informing the public requires the use of more than a mere extract.
The Court itself identifies the clearest example: the situation of a very short text in respect of which the use of extracts proves impossible.
The practical relevance extends beyond the 22-line text that gave rise to the dispute. The same issue may arise in the case of an aphorism, a very short statement, a concise literary creation or other protected subject matter whose meaning or informational significance cannot reasonably be fragmented.
In such circumstances, reproduction of the work in its entirety does not become incompatible with the exception merely because it is complete.
This does not mean that EU law establishes a general right to reproduce protected works in their entirety. The Court notes that, as a rule, reproduction of an entire work may conflict with the normal exploitation of that work and may unreasonably prejudice the author’s legitimate interests. The three-step test under Article 5(5) therefore remains an essential safeguard.
But the converse is equally important: reproduction of the whole work cannot be excluded where, because of the nature or limited extent of the protected subject matter, fragmentation is impossible and use of the whole is necessary in order for the reporting exception to remain effective.
It is precisely at this point that the current wording of Article 35(2)(c) of Romanian Copyright Law No 8/1996 becomes incompatible with the standard laid down by the Court.
The Romanian provision does not formulate the “short extracts” requirement as a proportionality test. It does not say “short extracts, unless otherwise required by the informatory purpose”. Nor does it establish any mechanism allowing the work to be used in its entirety where fragmentation would prevent the very purpose of the exception from being achieved.
The Directive, as interpreted by the Court, permits a conditional limitation. Romanian law establishes an unconditional one.
Read a contrario, the Court’s answer therefore reveals an incompatibility in the current Romanian provision: insofar as national law absolutely prevents the use of an entire work, including where such use is necessary and proportionate to achieve the informatory purpose, it fails to comply with the standard imposed by Article 5(3)(c) of the InfoSoc Directive.
The fact that the CJEU recognises, in principle, the possibility for Member States to use the “short extracts” criterion does not save a national provision that fails to incorporate the conditions under which such a criterion is compatible with EU law.
The relevant test is the extent of the use that is necessary and proportionate for the exception for reporting current events to achieve its purpose, subject to the safeguards laid down in Article 5(5).
-
Commercially financed journalism remains journalism
The third clarification is probably the one with the broadest practical significance for the media industry. Article 35 of Romanian Copyright Law made the relevant use conditional upon the absence of any direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage.
In this respect, the Court’s answer makes clear that Article 5(3)(c) of the InfoSoc Directive precludes a national rule imposing a general prohibition on deriving a direct or indirect commercial or economic advantage from the use of protected material for the purpose of reporting current events.
Unlike the “short extracts” criterion, which Member States may introduce subject to the conditions described above, the additional requirement concerning the absence of economic advantage has no basis in Article 5(3)(c).
The Court’s reasoning is particularly important because it acknowledges the economic reality of journalism. The press performs an essential function in a democratic society by informing the public and contributing to public debate. At the same time, media activity ordinarily takes place within an economic framework necessary to finance that function.
A publication does not cease to inform because it sells advertising. A television broadcaster does not lose its journalistic function because it carries advertising around its news programmes. An online media platform does not cease to report current events because it operates through subscriptions, advertising, sponsorship or another monetisation model.
Making the exception conditional upon the absolute absence of any direct or indirect economic benefit would, to a large extent, deprive it of its effectiveness for commercially operated media. The judgment therefore removes an important source of legal uncertainty.
Media companies may finance their activities, sell advertising and monetise their productions without the mere existence of such revenues excluding them from relying on the exception for reporting current events, provided that the other conditions governing that exception are satisfied.
The clarification is plainly relevant to print and online media, television broadcasters, audiovisual news productions and other media formats in which it may be necessary to present, reproduce or communicate protected material in order to inform the public about a current event.
The principle is particularly important wherever the editorial product and its financing coexist — for example, where advertising is placed before, during or after a news programme containing material used pursuant to a copyright exception.
The other requirements continue to apply: there must genuinely be a purpose of reporting current events; the extent of the use must be justified by that purpose; applicable requirements concerning acknowledgment of the source and the author must be respected; proportionality remains essential; and the three-step test under Article 5(5) continues to protect the normal exploitation of the work and the legitimate interests of rightholders.
What disappears, however, is a different and much broader obstacle: the assumption that commercial financing of the press and reliance on the current-events reporting exception are inherently incompatible.
Taken together, the three answers in Gândul Media Network coherently reaffirm how EU copyright law is intended to operate.
Protection depends on the originality of the expression, rather than literary labels, the length of the creation or the technological medium in which it is published. Exceptions must remain effective and capable of achieving their purpose, and national law cannot reduce them to formal conditions that make their exercise impossible in situations that EU law is intended to protect.
Nor does freedom of information cease to apply merely because the media organisation exercising it also conducts the economic activity necessary to finance journalism. The judgment neither diminishes copyright protection nor creates an unlimited right to reproduce protected material.
For Romanian law, the consequences are significant. The judgment highlights two distinct problems with the current implementation of Article 5(3)(c): the absolute limitation to “short extracts”, which fails to incorporate the requirements of necessity and proportionality needed to preserve the effectiveness of the exception, and the condition requiring the absence of an economic advantage, which the Court directly rejects.
For media companies, authors and national courts alike, C-598/24 therefore provides a significantly greater degree of legal certainty as to those boundaries.
CJEU, Case C-598/24, Gândul Media Network, Judgment of 3 September 2026.
Case handled by Turcu & Turcu, in cooperation with Baciu Partners.