🔗 Share this article

A Danish man has been found guilty of sharing nude segments from copyrighted movies and television shows on the online platform Reddit.

According to a police document reviewed by media outlets, the anonymous man posted 347 clips of explicit scenes in a subreddit he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million times.

The country's police state he has been given a 7-month deferred sentence for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts say the defendant was charged under a seldom-invoked clause in Danish copyright law, with the judge finding that by removing the scenes out of their original context, the man had damaged the performers' "moral rights".

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

From March 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 administrator of.

According to the Danish anti-piracy group The Rights Alliance (TRA), his subreddit had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were encouraged to ask for clips of specific performers.

In 2023, campaigners filed the incident to the authorities on behalf of the impacted artists, filmmakers and production companies, which led to the subreddit being shut down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, among the performers whose explicit scenes were shared in the community, told local broadcasters at the period she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a film and appearing on Reddit.

The performer stated the uploads constituted "exploitation".

'An important signal'

The defendant was detained in September 2024 and admitted culpable to the allegations last month.

In a comment following the ruling, TRA head Maria Fredenslund said the decision sent an "significant" message "that violations of artists' rights have repercussions".

The ruling is viewed as unique in Denmark for its application of the "ethical protections" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which states an creator's work cannot be used in a manner which infringes upon their reputation.

Intellectual property specialist a legal scholar told BBC News the case was "rare" for its focus on the damage to the integrity of an performer, rather than to them financially.

How the ruling could influence nations abroad is uncertain.

But she added there may be "an increasing number of these actions" in the coming years with the growth of artificial intelligence, where "the integrity of an individual's creative output might be tempered with with greater ease".