🔗 Share this article

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

Based on a police document reviewed by BBC News, the anonymous individual shared 347 clips of nude scenes in a Reddit group he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

Danish police state he has been handed a 7-month deferred sentence for violating copyright laws.

Legal analysts explain the man was charged under a seldom-invoked provision in Denmark's copyright law, with the court ruling that by removing the scenes out of their original context, the accused had damaged the artists' "ethical entitlements".

He has additionally been found guilty of sharing more than 25 terabytes of protected digital content.

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

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

Per the Danish copyright protection group the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were prompted to ask for excerpts of particular actors.

In 2023, advocates reported the incident to the authorities on behalf of the affected artists, directors and production companies, which led to the subreddit being shut down.

One actress, one of the actresses whose nude scenes were shared in the community, explained to local media at the period she felt there was a difference between appearing unclothed in a film and appearing on Reddit.

The actress said the posts constituted "abuse".

'A significant signal'

The defendant was detained in fall 2024 and admitted guilty to the charges recently.

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

The verdict is considered unique in Denmark for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which states an artist's work cannot be utilized in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property expert a legal scholar told BBC News the case was "unusual" for its emphasis on the damage to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them economically.

How the ruling could influence nations abroad is uncertain.

But she said there may be "an increasing number of such cases" in the coming years with the growth of AI, where "the integrity of one's work might be compromised much more easily".