🔗 Share this article

A Denmark-based man has been convicted of uploading sexually explicit segments from protected films and TV series on the social media site Reddit.

Based on a law enforcement report obtained by media outlets, the unnamed man posted 347 clips of nude content in a subreddit he moderated, which were then watched 4.2 million-plus times.

Danish police state he has been given a 7-month suspended sentence for copyright infringement.

Legal analysts say the man was charged under a seldom-invoked provision in Danish copyright law, with the court ruling that by removing the scenes out of their intended setting, the accused had damaged the artists' "ethical entitlements".

He has also been convicted of sharing more than 25 terabytes of copyrighted data.

From March 2022 to May 2023, the man known as "KlammereFyr" on Reddit uploaded sexually explicit scenes including over 100 female performers.

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

According to the Denmark's anti-piracy organization The Rights Alliance (TRA), his subreddit had more than 6,000 members and users were encouraged to request excerpts of specific actors.

In 2023, advocates reported the incident to the authorities on behalf of the affected artists, directors and producers, which led to the forum being shut down.

Andrea Vagn Jensen, among the performers whose explicit scenes were circulated in the community, explained to local broadcasters at the period she believed there was a distinction between being seen naked in a film and being shown on Reddit.

The performer stated the posts constituted "abuse".

'An important message'

The man was arrested in September 2024 and admitted guilty to the allegations last month.

In a comment following the ruling, TRA head Maria Fredenslund said the outcome sent an "important" message "that infringements of artists' rights has repercussions".

The ruling is considered unprecedented in the country for its application of the "moral rights" clause of the Danish Copyright Act, which specifies an artist's creation cannot be used in a way which violates their reputation.

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

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

But she said there may be "more and more of these actions" in the coming years with the growth of AI, where "the integrity of one's creative output might be compromised much more easily".