🔗 Share this article

A Danish man has been found guilty of uploading nude segments from protected movies and television shows on the social media site Reddit.

Based on a law enforcement document obtained by BBC News, the anonymous man posted 347 clips of nude content in a subreddit he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

The country's authorities state he has been handed a 7-month deferred jail term for violating copyright laws.

Experts explain the defendant was charged under a seldom-invoked provision in Denmark's copyright law, with the judge ruling that by taking the scenes out of their original context, the accused had damaged the artists' "ethical entitlements".

He has additionally been convicted of distributing more than 25 TB of protected data.

From spring 2022 to mid-2023, the user using the alias "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded sexually explicit clips featuring over 100 actresses.

He shared them in the subreddit he was a moderator of.

According to the Danish anti-piracy group the Rights Alliance, his online community had more than 6,000 members and participants were prompted to request excerpts of specific performers.

In last year, campaigners filed the case to the police on behalf of the affected actors, filmmakers and production companies, which led to the subreddit being shut down.

One actress, among the actresses whose nude content were shared in the group, told local media at the time she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The actress said the posts constituted "abuse".

'A significant signal'

The man was arrested in fall 2024 and admitted guilty to the allegations recently.

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

The ruling is considered unprecedented in the country for its application of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which specifies an artist's creation cannot be utilized in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property specialist Dr Alina Trapova told the media the case was "rare" for its focus on the damage to the integrity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

The extent to which the ruling could influence other countries is unclear.

But she said there may be "more and more of such cases" in the future with the growth of AI, where "the integrity of one's creative output might be tempered with with greater ease".