🔗 Share this article

A Danish citizen has been found guilty of sharing nude scenes from copyrighted movies and TV series on the online site Reddit.

According to a police document reviewed by media outlets, the unnamed individual shared 347 clips of explicit content in a subreddit he managed, which were then viewed 4.2 million times.

Danish police confirm he has been given a seven-month suspended sentence for violating copyright laws.

Experts say the defendant was charged under a seldom-invoked clause in Danish copyright law, with the court finding that by taking the footage out of their original context, the accused had harmed the artists' "moral rights".

He has also been found guilty of distributing more than 25 TB of copyrighted data.

From spring 2022 to May 2023, the user known as "the pseudonym KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded adult scenes including over 100 female performers.

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

Per the Denmark's copyright protection organization the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 members and participants were encouraged to request clips of particular actors.

In last year, campaigners filed the case to the authorities on behalf of the impacted artists, filmmakers and production companies, which led to the forum being closed down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the actresses whose nude content were circulated in the group, told Danish broadcasters at the period she felt there was a distinction between appearing unclothed in a film and appearing on Reddit.

The actress stated the uploads constituted "exploitation".

'A significant message'

The defendant was detained in September 2024 and admitted culpable to the charges recently.

In a comment after the verdict, TRA head Maria Fredenslund said the decision sent an "significant" signal "that infringements of creators' entitlements has consequences".

The ruling is considered unique in Denmark for its use of the "moral rights" section of the Danish Copyright Act, which specifies an artist's creation cannot be utilized in a manner which violates their standing.

Copyright law expert a legal scholar informed BBC News the case was "rare" for its focus on the damage to the integrity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

How the ruling could influence other countries is uncertain.

But she added there may be "an increasing number of such cases" in the coming years with the growth of artificial intelligence, where "the sanctity of one's work might be tempered with with greater ease".