🔗 Share this article

A Danish citizen has been found guilty of uploading nude scenes from protected films and television shows on the social media platform Reddit.

Based on a police document obtained by BBC News, the unnamed man posted 347 clips of nude content in a Reddit group he moderated, which were then viewed 4.2 million times.

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

Experts explain the defendant was prosecuted under a rarely-used clause in Danish intellectual property legislation, with the judge ruling that by taking the footage out of their original context, the man had harmed the artists' "moral rights".

He has also been found guilty of distributing more than 25 terabytes of protected digital content.

From spring 2022 to May 2023, the man using the alias "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded adult clips including over 100 female performers.

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 prompted to request clips of specific performers.

In 2023, advocates filed the incident to the police on behalf of the affected actors, filmmakers and production companies, which led to the subreddit being closed down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, one of the actresses whose nude content were shared in the group, told Danish media at the time she believed there was a distinction between appearing naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The actress said the uploads constituted "abuse".

'An important message'

The defendant was detained in fall 2024 and pleaded culpable to the charges last month.

In a statement after the ruling, TRA head the organization's leader remarked the outcome sent an "important" signal "that violations of creators' entitlements has repercussions".

The verdict is considered unprecedented in the country for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the national copyright law, which specifies an artist's creation cannot be utilized in a way which infringes upon their standing.

Copyright law specialist Dr Alina Trapova informed BBC News the case was "rare" for its emphasis on the harm to the dignity of an performer, rather than to them financially.

The extent to which the ruling could influence nations abroad is unclear.

But she said there may be "more and more of such cases" in the future with the growth of AI, where "the sanctity of an individual's work might be compromised much more easily".