🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based citizen has been convicted of uploading sexually explicit segments from copyrighted films and TV series on the online site Reddit.

Based on a law enforcement document obtained by media outlets, the anonymous man posted 347 clips of explicit scenes in a subreddit he managed, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

The country's authorities state he has been given a 7-month deferred sentence for copyright infringement.

Experts say the defendant was charged under a rarely-used clause in Danish intellectual property legislation, with the court finding that by removing the footage out of their original context, the accused had damaged the performers' "ethical entitlements".

He has additionally been found guilty of distributing more than 25 terabytes of copyrighted data.

From March 2022 to May 2023, the user known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted adult clips featuring over 100 actresses.

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

Per the Denmark's anti-piracy group the Rights Alliance, his online community had more than 6,000 members and users were encouraged to request clips of particular actors.

In last year, advocates reported the incident to the police on behalf of the affected artists, directors and producers, which resulted in the subreddit being shut down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the actresses whose explicit scenes were circulated in the group, told Danish media at the time she believed there was a difference between appearing naked in a film and appearing on Reddit.

The actress stated the posts constituted "exploitation".

'An important message'

The defendant was detained in fall 2024 and pleaded guilty to the charges recently.

In a comment following the ruling, the head of the Rights Alliance Maria Fredenslund said the outcome sent an "significant" signal "that infringements of artists' entitlements have repercussions".

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

Intellectual property expert Dr Alina Trapova informed BBC News the case was "rare" for its focus 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 "an increasing number of such cases" in the future with the growth of AI, where "the integrity of an individual's creative output might be tempered with with greater ease".