🔗 Share this article

A Danish citizen has been found guilty of sharing sexually explicit segments from protected films and TV series on the online platform Reddit.

According to a police report reviewed by BBC News, the unnamed man posted 347 clips of nude scenes in a subreddit he moderated, which were then watched 4.2 million times.

The country's police confirm he has been handed a 7-month suspended jail term for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts say the defendant was prosecuted under a seldom-invoked clause in Denmark's copyright law, with the court ruling that by removing the scenes out of their original context, the man had harmed the artists' "moral rights".

He has additionally been convicted of distributing more than 25 TB of copyrighted digital content.

From March 2022 to mid-2023, the user known as "the pseudonym KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted sexually explicit clips featuring over 100 female performers.

He distributed them in the subreddit he was a administrator of.

Per the Danish anti-piracy organization the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 members and users were prompted to ask for excerpts of particular performers.

In 2023, campaigners filed the case to the authorities on behalf of the impacted actors, directors and producers, which led to the subreddit being closed down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the performers whose nude content were shared in the group, explained to local media at the time she felt there was a distinction between being seen naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The actress said the uploads amounted to "abuse".

'An important message'

The man was arrested in September 2024 and pleaded guilty to the charges recently.

In a comment after the verdict, the head of the Rights Alliance Maria Fredenslund said the decision sent an "important" message "that infringements of creators' entitlements has repercussions".

The ruling is viewed as unique in the country for its use of the "moral rights" section of the national copyright law, which states an artist's creation cannot be used in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property specialist a legal scholar told the media the legal matter was "unusual" for its emphasis on the damage to the integrity of an artist, rather than to them economically.

The extent to which the case could influence nations abroad is unclear.

But she added there may be "an increasing number of such cases" in the coming years with the growth of AI, where "the sanctity of one's creative output might be compromised with greater ease".