🔗 Share this article

A Danish citizen has been convicted of uploading sexually explicit scenes from protected films and television shows on the social media platform Reddit.

Based on a police document obtained by media outlets, the anonymous individual posted 347 video excerpts of explicit scenes in a Reddit group he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million times.

Danish police confirm he has been given a seven-month suspended sentence for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts explain the defendant was prosecuted under a rarely-used clause in Danish intellectual property legislation, with the court finding that by removing the footage out of their intended setting, the man had damaged the performers' "moral rights".

He has additionally been found guilty of distributing more than 25 TB of protected data.

From spring 2022 to May 2023, the user using the alias "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded adult scenes featuring over 100 actresses.

He shared them in the subreddit he was a administrator of.

Per the Danish anti-piracy organization the Rights Alliance, his subreddit had more than 6,000 subscribers and participants were prompted to request clips of particular performers.

In 2023, advocates reported the case to the authorities on behalf of the affected artists, filmmakers and producers, which led to the forum being closed down.

One actress, one of the performers whose explicit content were circulated in the group, explained to local media at the period she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The actress stated the posts constituted "abuse".

'An important message'

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

In a statement after the verdict, TRA head the organization's leader said the outcome sent an "important" signal "that infringements of creators' rights has repercussions".

The verdict is considered unprecedented in the country for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which states an artist's work cannot be used in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Intellectual property expert Dr Alina Trapova told BBC News the case was "rare" for its focus on the damage to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them financially.

The extent to which the ruling could affect nations abroad is uncertain.

But she added there may be "an increasing number of these actions" in the future with the advancement of artificial intelligence, where "the sanctity of an individual's creative output might be compromised with greater ease".