🔗 Share this article

A Danish citizen has been found guilty of uploading nude segments from protected movies and TV series on the online platform Reddit.

Based on a police report reviewed by media outlets, the anonymous man shared 347 clips of explicit content in a Reddit group he moderated, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

Danish authorities confirm he has been given a seven-month deferred jail term for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts explain the man was charged under a rarely-used clause in Denmark's intellectual property legislation, with the judge ruling that by removing the footage out of their original context, the accused had harmed the performers' "ethical entitlements".

He has also been convicted of distributing more than 25 TB of copyrighted data.

From March 2022 to May 2023, the user using the alias "the pseudonym KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded sexually explicit clips including over 100 actresses.

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

Per the Denmark's copyright protection organization the Rights Alliance, his online community had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were encouraged to ask for excerpts of particular performers.

In last year, advocates filed the case to the police on behalf of the impacted artists, directors and production companies, which resulted in the forum being closed down.

One actress, one of the actresses whose nude content were shared in the community, told Danish broadcasters at the period she believed there was a distinction between being seen unclothed in a film and being shown on Reddit.

The actress said the posts constituted "abuse".

'An important 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 remarked the decision sent an "significant" message "indicating infringements of creators' rights have repercussions".

The verdict is viewed as unprecedented in Denmark for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the national copyright law, which states an artist's work cannot be utilized in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property specialist a legal scholar informed the media the case was "unusual" for its emphasis on the damage to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them economically.

The extent to which the case could influence nations abroad is uncertain.

But she added there may be "more and more of these actions" in the coming years with the growth of AI, where "the integrity of an individual's creative output might be compromised with greater ease".