🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based citizen has been found guilty of sharing nude segments from copyrighted films and television shows on the social media site Reddit.

Based on a law enforcement document obtained by media outlets, the anonymous individual posted 347 video excerpts of nude scenes in a subreddit he moderated, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

The country's authorities state he has been given a seven-month suspended sentence for violating copyright laws.

Experts explain the defendant was prosecuted under a seldom-invoked clause in Danish 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 also been convicted of distributing more than 25 TB of copyrighted data.

From March 2022 to May 2023, the man using the alias "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded adult scenes including over 100 actresses.

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

According to the Danish copyright protection organization the Rights Alliance, his online community had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were prompted to request excerpts of specific actors.

In last year, advocates reported the incident to the authorities on behalf of the affected actors, filmmakers and producers, which resulted in the subreddit being closed down.

One actress, among the actresses whose nude content were circulated in the group, told Danish media at the time she felt there was a distinction between appearing unclothed in a movie and appearing on Reddit.

The actress stated 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, TRA head Maria Fredenslund said the outcome sent an "significant" message "indicating violations of creators' rights have consequences".

The verdict is considered unique in Denmark for its application of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which specifies an artist's creation cannot be used in a manner which violates their standing.

Copyright law specialist a legal scholar told the media the case was "unusual" for its emphasis on the damage to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

How the ruling could affect other countries is uncertain.

But she added there may be "more and more of these actions" in the future with the advancement of artificial intelligence, where "the sanctity of one's work might be compromised much more easily".