🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based man has been found guilty of sharing sexually explicit scenes from copyrighted movies and TV series on the online platform Reddit.

Based on a police document obtained by BBC News, the unnamed man shared 347 clips of nude scenes in a Reddit group he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million times.

Danish authorities state he has been given a seven-month deferred jail term for violating copyright laws.

Experts say the defendant was charged under a rarely-used clause in Denmark's copyright law, with the judge ruling that by taking the scenes out of their original context, the accused had harmed the artists' "ethical entitlements".

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

From March 2022 to mid-2023, the user known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted sexually explicit clips including over 100 female performers.

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

Per the Danish copyright protection organization the Rights Alliance, his online community had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were prompted to request clips of particular performers.

In last year, advocates filed the case to the police on behalf of the affected actors, directors and production companies, which led to the forum being closed down.

One actress, among the actresses whose nude scenes were shared in the community, told local broadcasters at the period she believed there was a difference between appearing naked in a film and being shown on Reddit.

The performer stated the posts constituted "abuse".

'A significant message'

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

In a statement after the ruling, TRA head the organization's leader remarked the outcome sent an "significant" message "that infringements of creators' entitlements have consequences".

The ruling is considered unprecedented in Denmark for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the national copyright law, which specifies an creator's work cannot be used in a way which violates their standing.

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

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 coming years with the growth of artificial intelligence, where "the integrity of one's work might be compromised much more easily".