🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based citizen has been found guilty of sharing nude segments from protected movies and TV series on the online platform Reddit.

According to a police document obtained by BBC News, the anonymous man shared 347 clips of nude scenes in a Reddit group he moderated, which were then viewed 4.2 million times.

The country's authorities confirm he has been given a 7-month deferred jail term for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts say the man was prosecuted under a rarely-used provision in Danish intellectual property legislation, with the court ruling that by removing the scenes out of their original context, the accused had damaged the artists' "ethical entitlements".

He has also been found guilty of distributing more than 25 terabytes of copyrighted digital content.

From spring 2022 to mid-2023, the user known as "the pseudonym KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted adult clips including over 100 female performers.

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

Per the Denmark's copyright protection group the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 members and users were encouraged to ask for excerpts of particular actors.

In 2023, advocates filed the incident to the authorities on behalf of the impacted artists, filmmakers and producers, which resulted in the subreddit being shut down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the actresses whose explicit content were circulated in the community, explained to Danish media at the time she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a movie and appearing on Reddit.

The performer said the uploads constituted "exploitation".

'An important message'

The defendant was detained in fall 2024 and pleaded culpable to the allegations recently.

In a statement after the ruling, the head of the Rights Alliance Maria Fredenslund remarked the outcome sent an "important" message "that infringements of creators' rights have repercussions".

The verdict is considered unprecedented in the country for its use of the "ethical protections" section of the national copyright law, which states an artist's work cannot be utilized in a manner which violates their standing.

Copyright law expert a legal scholar told the media the case was "rare" for its focus on the harm to the integrity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

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

But she added there may be "more and more of these actions" in the coming years with the advancement of artificial intelligence, where "the integrity of one's work might be compromised with greater ease".