🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based man has been convicted of sharing nude segments from copyrighted movies and television shows on the social media site Reddit.

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

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

Experts explain the man was charged under a seldom-invoked provision in Danish intellectual property legislation, with the judge finding that by taking the footage out of their original context, the accused had harmed the artists' "ethical entitlements".

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

From spring 2022 to mid-2023, the man known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded adult scenes including over 100 actresses.

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

According to the Danish anti-piracy organization the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were encouraged to ask for clips of specific actors.

In 2023, advocates filed the case to the police on behalf of the affected artists, directors and production companies, which resulted in the subreddit being shut down.

One actress, among the performers whose nude content were shared in the group, explained to Danish media at the time she felt there was a difference between being seen naked in a movie and appearing on Reddit.

The actress said the uploads constituted "abuse".

'A significant signal'

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

In a comment after the verdict, the head of the Rights Alliance the organization's leader said the decision sent an "significant" message "indicating infringements of creators' rights has repercussions".

The ruling is considered unique in the country for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which specifies an creator's creation cannot be used in a manner which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property specialist a legal scholar told the media the case was "rare" for its focus on the harm to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

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 artificial intelligence, where "the sanctity of one's creative output might be compromised with greater ease".