🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based man has been convicted of uploading sexually explicit scenes from protected movies and TV series on the online platform Reddit.

According to a law enforcement report obtained by BBC News, the unnamed man posted 347 clips of nude content in a subreddit he moderated, which were then viewed 4.2 million-plus times.

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

Experts say the man was charged under a rarely-used clause in Denmark's copyright law, with the judge finding that by removing the scenes out of their intended setting, the accused had harmed the performers' "moral rights".

He has additionally been convicted of distributing more than 25 terabytes of copyrighted digital content.

From spring 2022 to mid-2023, the user known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit posted adult clips including over 100 female performers.

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

Per the Denmark's copyright protection group The Rights Alliance (TRA), his subreddit had more than 6,000 subscribers and users were prompted to ask for excerpts of specific performers.

In 2023, campaigners filed the case to the authorities on behalf of the affected actors, directors and producers, which led to the forum being shut down.

One actress, one of the performers whose explicit content were shared in the group, told local broadcasters at the time she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a movie and being shown on Reddit.

The actress said the uploads constituted "exploitation".

'An important signal'

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

In a statement following the verdict, the head of the Rights Alliance the organization's leader remarked the decision sent an "important" message "that infringements of artists' entitlements has consequences".

The verdict is viewed as unique in Denmark for its use of the "moral rights" clause of the national copyright law, which states an artist's creation cannot be used in a way which violates their standing.

Copyright law specialist a legal scholar told BBC News the case was "rare" for its emphasis on the damage to the dignity of an artist, rather than to them economically.

How the case could affect other countries is unclear.

But she added there may be "an increasing number of these actions" in the coming years with the advancement of artificial intelligence, where "the integrity of an individual's work might be compromised with greater ease".