Someone makes a public comment on LinkedIn. You quote it in a blog post with full attribution and a link to their profile. They send you a message demanding you remove it, claiming you need their permission and that it "goes beyond fair use." Are they right?
No. But knowing exactly why requires understanding the legal framework, the practical steps, and the common myths that trip people up. This guide walks through the entire process of legally quoting public social media comments in your articles, from verifying the comment is public to handling complaints when they arrive.
Here are the seven steps:
- Confirm the comment is actually public
- Understand which law applies to you
- Check your use qualifies as fair dealing
- Collect proper attribution details
- Format the citation correctly in your article
- Consider GDPR and data protection
- Handle edge cases and complaints
Tools you'll need
- Web browser: to access the original post and verify public status
- Screenshot tool: for internal evidence of the post's public status
- Text editor or CMS: to write and format your article
No consumable supplies required.
Step 1: Confirm the Comment Is Genuinely Public
Before quoting anything, verify the comment was made in a public space. This is the foundation of everything that follows. If the comment is not public, fair dealing does not apply and you need explicit permission.
What counts as public:
- LinkedIn: Posts visible to "Anyone" (globe icon). Comments on public posts are public by definition.
- Twitter/X: Any tweet from a non-protected account. If you can see it without following them, it is public.
- Facebook: Posts with the globe icon. Posts with the friends icon or a group lock are not public.
- Instagram: Posts from public accounts. Private account posts are never public, even if someone shows you a screenshot.
What does NOT count as public:
- Comments in private Facebook groups (even large ones)
- Direct messages on any platform
- Posts from protected Twitter/X accounts
- LinkedIn messages or InMail
- Content behind a paywall or login requirement
Tip: Take a timestamped screenshot showing the post's public status before you quote it. If the user later changes their privacy settings or deletes the post, you have evidence it was public when you accessed it.
Step 2: Understand Which Law Applies to You
This is the question that confuses most people: if you are in the UK, writing on a UK website, and the person you are quoting is in the United States, whose law applies?
The answer is simple: the law of the country where you are publishing. If you are a UK-based publisher, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 governs your actions. The commenter's location does not change this.
| Feature | UK Fair Dealing (CDPA 1988) | US Fair Use (17 USC §107) |
|---|---|---|
| Approach | Restrictive: must fit a named category | Open-ended: four-factor balancing test |
| Permitted purposes | Criticism, review, quotation, news reporting | Criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, research |
| Transformative defence | Not a standalone defence | Strong defence if use adds new meaning |
| Attribution required? | Yes: "sufficient acknowledgement" is mandatory | Not legally required but good practice |
| Amount test | No more than required for the purpose | Proportionality weighed against purpose |
The practical takeaway for UK publishers: if your use qualifies as fair dealing under UK law (which is the stricter standard), it will almost certainly qualify as fair use under US law as well. You do not need to worry about satisfying both systems separately.
What about where the website is consumed? The "targeting" doctrine means courts can claim jurisdiction if you specifically target users in another country. But for a UK small business blog that happens to be readable in the US, UK law is what governs. You would need to be actively marketing to US audiences for US courts to have a realistic claim.
One common myth worth addressing: platform Terms of Service do not create special copyright protection. When someone posts on LinkedIn, they grant LinkedIn a licence to use that content. They do not grant you one, and LinkedIn's ToS does not prevent third parties from exercising fair dealing rights. As the UK Government states, fair dealing exceptions cannot be overridden by contracts or terms of service. This has been the case since 2014.
"Fair dealing for criticism, review or quotation is allowed for any type of copyright work. A sufficient acknowledgement will be required."
- UK Government, Exceptions to Copyright, GOV.UK
That is the UK Government's own guidance, not an interpretation. Social media posts are copyright works. Fair dealing applies to them. And since 2014, no contract or terms of service can override that right.
Step 3: Check Your Use Qualifies as Fair Dealing
Knowing that fair dealing exists is one thing. Confirming your specific use qualifies is the step most people skip. Here is the checklist:
1. Was the work made available to the public?
If the comment was posted publicly on social media, yes. This is why Step 1 matters.
2. Does your use fall within a permitted purpose?
- Criticism or review: You are analysing or responding to what they said
- Quotation: You are referencing their words to support a point (Section 30(1ZA))
- Reporting current events: You are covering a newsworthy discussion
3. Is the amount you are quoting proportionate?
Quoting a comment or a few sentences from a discussion thread is proportionate. Copying someone's entire 2,000-word LinkedIn article is not. The test is whether you used more than was necessary for your purpose.
4. Are you providing sufficient acknowledgement?
Name the author and ideally link to the original post or their profile. This is mandatory for UK fair dealing.
The courts apply what is sometimes called the "fair-minded person" test: how would a reasonable, honest person have dealt with this material? If you are quoting a short comment in a commentary piece with full attribution and your own analysis, that is textbook fair dealing. If you are copying someone's work and presenting it as content filler with no commentary, that is not.
Tip: There is one use that fair dealing almost never covers: using a positive comment as a testimonial on a sales page. That is commercial promotion, not criticism or review. For testimonials, always get explicit permission.
Step 4: Collect Proper Attribution Details
Before you write a single word, gather the attribution data you will need. For each comment you plan to quote, record:
| Detail | Where to Find It | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Author's full name | Their profile display name | Jane Smith |
| Platform | The site where the comment was made | |
| Date | Timestamp on the post or comment | 28 January 2026 |
| Permalink URL | Right-click the timestamp or use "Copy link to post" | https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/... |
Copy the permalink URL immediately. Social media posts can be deleted or made private at any time. Having the URL on record proves the comment existed and was publicly accessible when you accessed it.
For LinkedIn comments specifically, right-click the timestamp on the comment itself (not the parent post) to get the direct link to that specific comment.
Tip: Store your attribution data in a consistent format. If you regularly reference social media discussions in your content, create a simple spreadsheet or note template: Name, Platform, Date, URL, Quote text, Your commentary purpose.
Step 5: Format the Citation Correctly in Your Article
Now you have the facts and the legal clearance. Here is how to present the quote in your article.
The recommended format:
<blockquote>
<p>"The quoted text goes here, exactly as written."</p>
<cite>- <a href="https://linkedin.com/in/janedoe/"
target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Jane Smith</a>,
LinkedIn, January 2026</cite>
</blockquote>That gives you the three elements you need: the quote itself in quotation marks, the author's name linked to their profile, and the platform and date for context.
Inline citation works equally well for shorter quotes within your prose:
Jane Smith, a marketing manager, pushed back on the idea: "Your analogy is bad." She was responding to a comparison between AI tools and the Ford assembly line.
The critical element that makes or breaks your fair dealing position is what you write around the quote. You are not just republishing their words. You are analysing, responding to, or building on them. That commentary is what transforms a quote from simple reproduction into fair dealing. It is the same principle behind what makes a website actually work. Substance and structure matter more than surface polish.
"If you are going to quote something, keep it short, keep it relevant, and attribute it."
- Mark Stephens CBE, Partner (Media Law), Howard Kennedy LLP
Stephens has been advising on media law for decades, and the principle is as simple as it sounds. Short, relevant, attributed. That is the practical standard. If your quote is a sentence or two from a public discussion, with the author named and linked, used within a commentary article, you have done everything right. I have been writing editorial commentary that quotes public discussions for years, and the formula has never changed: quote briefly, attribute clearly, add your own analysis.
Tip: Never alter the meaning of a quote. If someone made a spelling error, either quote it exactly (with [sic] if needed) or paraphrase in your own words. Editing someone's words in a way that changes their meaning opens you to defamation claims, which is a completely separate legal issue.
Step 6: Consider GDPR and Data Protection
This is the step that most guides on quoting social media completely miss. Copyright is only half the picture. When you name someone in an article, you are processing their personal data under UK GDPR.
A person's name and their expressed opinions are personal data. Even when they posted those opinions publicly on LinkedIn or Twitter. You need a lawful basis to process that data in your article.
For editorial commentary and journalism, the standard basis is Legitimate Interests (Article 6(1)(f) UK GDPR). This requires you to balance your interest in publishing against their right to privacy. In practice:
- Public debate on a public platform: Legitimate Interest almost always applies. The person chose to participate publicly.
- Public figure: Stronger case for naming them. Public figures have a reduced expectation of privacy in their professional capacity.
- Private individual, sensitive topic: Consider whether you need to name them. Could you make the same point with "one commenter argued..."?
- Minor (under 18): Do not name them. Full stop.
There is a related question about the right to be forgotten. If someone deletes their original comment and asks you to remove the quote from your article, you do not have an automatic legal obligation to comply (this is editorial content, not a search engine listing). But you should weigh whether keeping the quote serves your editorial purpose strongly enough to justify refusing. In many cases, anonymising the quote is a reasonable middle ground.
For content that performs well in search, proper GDPR consideration also strengthens your E-E-A-T signals. Google rewards content that demonstrates trustworthiness, and a well-cited article that handles personal data responsibly is more trustworthy than one that does not.
Tip: If you regularly quote social media discussions in your blog, add a brief note to your privacy policy explaining that you process publicly available personal data for editorial and journalistic purposes under Legitimate Interests. This is not legally required in most cases but demonstrates good practice. It is similar to how UK legal compliance for cookies works: doing it properly protects you and builds trust.
Step 7: Handle Edge Cases and Complaints
If you quote public comments in your writing, eventually someone will object. I know this from direct experience. We recently published a commentary article that quoted several people from a public LinkedIn discussion, and one of them complained, claiming we needed "permission," that their words were taken "out of context," and that LinkedIn ToS created "implicit copyright." Every single claim was legally incorrect.
Here is how to handle it:
When someone asks you to remove their quote:
- Review your process: Was the comment public? Did you attribute correctly? Is your use fair dealing?
- If yes to all three, respond factually. Explain that quoting public comments with attribution in editorial commentary is fair dealing under CDPA 1988 Section 30.
- Do not apologise for something that is legally and ethically sound. Do not engage emotionally.
- If the original comment has been deleted and you have no strong reason to keep the quote, consider removing it as a goodwill gesture.
When someone threatens legal action:
- Do not panic. Most threats are bluster from people who have not researched the law.
- Check their specific claims. Common incorrect claims include: "I didn't give permission" (not required for fair dealing), "LinkedIn ToS protects my content" (ToS cannot override fair dealing since 2014), and "this goes beyond fair use" (short attributed quotes in commentary are textbook fair dealing).
- Respond once, factually, citing the specific law. Then stop engaging.
- If you receive an actual solicitor's letter (not a LinkedIn message), consult a solicitor.
When the commenter makes a public complaint:
Respond publicly with the same factual explanation. You may find, ironically, that by complaining publicly they demonstrate they do have a platform to respond, which undermines their claim that you gave them "no avenue to defend themselves."
Having dealt with this situation recently, I would add one practical observation: the people who complain loudest about being quoted are often the people who were most combative in the original discussion. They want the right to argue publicly without the consequence of being publicly associated with their arguments. That is not how public discourse works.
Tip: Keep a template response ready for takedown requests. Something factual, citing Section 30 of the CDPA 1988, that you can adapt in two minutes. It saves time and prevents you from writing something emotional in the moment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do I need permission to quote a public LinkedIn comment on my blog?
Not if your use qualifies as fair dealing. Under UK law (CDPA 1988 Section 30), you can quote a public comment for purposes of criticism, review, quotation, or reporting current events, provided you give sufficient acknowledgement and only quote what is necessary. You do not need the commenter's permission for this.
Is it legal to screenshot tweets and post them on my website?
Screenshots create a reproduction of the original work, which is a stronger copyright claim than embedding or quoting text. If you are using the screenshot for commentary or criticism with attribution, fair dealing likely applies. However, embedding the tweet using the platform's embed code is legally safer because it does not create a new copy.
Does fair dealing apply to social media quotes in the UK?
Yes. Fair dealing under Section 30 of the CDPA 1988 applies to any type of copyright work, including social media posts. The comment must have been made available to the public, your use must be fair, and you must provide sufficient acknowledgement of the author.
Can I use a public social media comment as a testimonial without permission?
No. Using someone's comment as a testimonial on a sales or marketing page is commercial use, not criticism or review. Fair dealing does not cover promotional use. You need explicit permission to use someone's words to sell your products or services.
What happens if someone deletes a comment I already quoted?
If you quoted the text directly in your article, the quote remains. However, under UK GDPR, the person may request removal of their personal data. If they make a formal request and you have no overriding editorial reason to keep it, consider removing or anonymising the quote as a proportionate response.
Does giving credit protect me from copyright infringement?
Attribution is necessary for a fair dealing defence, but it is not sufficient on its own. You must also ensure your use falls within a permitted category (criticism, review, quotation) and that the amount you quote is proportionate. Credit without fair use is still infringement.
Does GDPR apply when I quote someone's public social media post?
Yes. A person's name and opinions are personal data under UK GDPR, even when publicly posted. You need a lawful basis to process that data. For editorial commentary and journalism, Legitimate Interests (Article 6(1)(f)) is the standard basis. You should balance your right to publish against their privacy rights.
Which law applies if I am in the UK quoting someone in the US?
UK law applies to you as the publisher. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 governs your actions when you publish on a UK website from a UK location. The commenter's location does not change which law applies to your use. US fair use law is generally broader, so if your use passes UK fair dealing, it would almost certainly pass US fair use as well.
Need a Website That Builds Credibility?
Properly cited, well-structured content is one of the strongest signals of trustworthiness for both readers and search engines. If you want a website that positions your business as an authority, with SEO that works and content AI systems trust enough to cite, we can help.
Get in Touch
