🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based citizen has been found guilty of uploading nude scenes from copyrighted films and TV series on the online site Reddit.

Based on a police document reviewed by BBC News, the unnamed man shared 347 video excerpts of explicit content in a subreddit he moderated, which were then watched 4.2 million times.

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

Legal analysts explain the defendant was charged under a rarely-used provision in Danish copyright law, with the court finding that by removing the scenes out of their intended setting, the accused had damaged the artists' "ethical entitlements".

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

From spring 2022 to May 2023, the man known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted sexually explicit clips including over 100 actresses.

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

Per the Danish anti-piracy organization The Rights Alliance (TRA), his online community had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were encouraged to request clips of particular performers.

In last year, advocates reported the incident to the police on behalf of the impacted artists, filmmakers and producers, which led to the forum being closed down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the performers whose nude content were shared in the group, told Danish broadcasters at the time she believed there was a difference between appearing naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The performer said the posts amounted to "abuse".

'A significant message'

The defendant was arrested in September 2024 and pleaded culpable to the allegations last month.

In a comment after the verdict, TRA head Maria Fredenslund remarked the outcome sent an "significant" message "indicating infringements of creators' rights has repercussions".

The verdict is considered unprecedented in the country for its application of the "ethical protections" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which states an artist's work cannot be used in a way which infringes upon their reputation.

Intellectual property expert Dr Alina Trapova informed BBC News the case was "rare" for its emphasis on the damage to the integrity of an artist, rather than to them economically.

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

But she said there may be "more and more of such cases" in the future with the advancement of artificial intelligence, where "the sanctity of an individual's work might be tempered with with greater ease".