Reddit-Mod in einem seltenen Urteil zu „moralischen Rechten“ für das Teilen von Sexszenen aus Filmen inhaftiert / Reddit-Nutzer gestand in einem wegweisenden Urteil, die „moralischen Rechte“ von Schauspielerinnen verletzt zu haben.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/11/reddit-mod-jailed-for-sharing-movie-sex-scenes-in-rare-moral-rights-verdict/
32 Kommentare
Holy shit that’s ridiculous
This is going to open up a massive can of worms and there’s going to be so many goal posts moved around for every proxy battle if this becomes more international.
> hundreds of nude scenes that actresses filmed for movies and TV shows but apparently never expected to be shared out of context
Have they … not heard of the internet? Half the theme of Seth Rogan’s 2007 classic [Knocked Up](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0478311/) was launching a website *devoted to documenting this*.
if you allow yourself to be filmed in the nude, no matter the form of art, once that’s shared with the world you open yourself up to people viewing it out of context
if you can’t handle that then you shouldn’t be nude in the film in the first place
what a ridiculous ruling
Based on the article, this was in Denmark, based on Danish copyright law, for a Danish citizen, with Danish plantifs.
This has nothing to do with the United States, or US copyright law. If you want to do this in the US, you are probably fine, as long as you obey US copyright law.
What about the mrskin website?! That’s the entire purpose of its existence.
Posting nude scenes is a violation of Danish copyright law? How odd.
Moral rights have been an important thing in the visual art world for decades. They are the rules that stop the person who purchases an artist’s work from (for example) slapping a Hitler mustache on a portrait for the lols while still attributing the work to the original artist.
In this case I am a little surprised that the actors are considered the aggrieved party as I had thought the director/studio would be the rights holder. I can understand where the argument is rooted, this guy was basically transforming romantic scenes into softcore porn, and trying to substantively alter the intention of the movies/scenes.
In the end it really depends on how you view ownership of creative works. If someone buys are sculpture are they entitled to have their own face carved into it without the artists permission? Should they be allowed to use Photoshop to make the subject of a Robert Mapplethorpe photo’s package bigger?
Ownership of the work and hanging tastes have been contentious for centuries (the Vatican knocked the cocks off Roman statues).
Laws in Scandinavia tend to be very progressive, especially when actions are exploiting women. I would be surprised if this goes international in a big way, and the US is waaaaaaaay to set in their ways to take any of this up.
DK again. The Internet isn’t puritan enough for their taste.
lol this is bs. if you put yourself out their naked thats on you. i swear women always want to dodge accountability. oh no i did porn so i want it scrubbed now.
Was he actually jailed?
Conditional prison sounds more like a deferred sentence where the sentence only gets carried out if you reoffend.
This is literally why YouTube was invented, except it was for clips of boobs at the SuperBowl
A casa caiu
Mrskin is going to go bankrupt
Comments here are predictably tiresome. I’ll speak from the perspective of someone who researches cyber harassment and stalking: this ruling defends artistic integrity and consent. The Reddit mod didn’t „share art,“ he stripped women actors of context and turned their performances into porn clips. That’s exploitation, not expression.
Actors consent to storytelling, a particular story, not to their bodies being repurposed for sexual voyeurism. Moral rights exist to stop creative works from being mutilated or misused. This isn’t a threat to valuable „free speech“; it’s a boundary against *abuse*. I know that’s challenging for a lot of my fellow Americans to appreciate given our cultural fetish for so-called (not actually) absolute „free expression,“ but the US is far behind Europe on cybercrime laws and violations, generally: revenge porn, deepfakes, cyber flashing, you name it. We need to start protecting people better.
So by this ruling is every Dane who jerked one out to a movie sex scene using that scene out of context illegally?
Guess Mr. Skin can cross Denmark off his travel list.
If anyone is like „wtf?“, it’s Europe
This is idiotic, half the YouTube shorts uploaders would be in jail if other countries did this
The link won’t open for me. What’s the sub?
If you don’t want people looking at your naughty bits online don’t film your naughty bits and share them with the world. This is ridiculous.
So are we not allowed to look at the scenes they filmed in movies which are publicly available?
I would absolutely hate to accidentally also share this video. Anyone have it to share so I can note which clip it is so I don’t accidentally share it? For science if course.
So modifying existing works is not allowed? That’s going to be a pain for DJ’s and edm producers.
This will grow into a massive… Streisand Effect.
Good thing this nonsense is only relevant in Denmark.
The idea that anyone can record a video, have it published, likely get compensated for it, and then expect to perpetually dictate the „morality“ of how it’s used is backwards and absurd.
Ok, so about this case. I haven’t read the judgement because it hasn’t been published yet but from what I gather this is a case about copyright. We have a special section in our copyright code that protects artistic integrity. That can be used in cases where copyrighted material is altered, misused or otherwise treated in a way that offends the artistic integrity of the copyright holder. It has been used in cases where material has been used in commercials or in political campaigns and also in a pornographic context.
The general issue is that this person violated copyright systematically and this is an enhancement because of the way it was used. So in this case it’s about sex scenes but the specific rule is not unique to that.
So this is more a case about copyright than about sexual harassment even though every media that covers the story wants to push the sexual angle. Bottomline: you can’t systematically violate copyright and alter the context and quality of the material, sex scenes or no sex scenes.
r/watchitfortheplot on suicide watch
Hard to keep track of every angle on stories like this. I’ve been using iFlux News to see verified summaries from multiple sources — worth checking out if you want a clearer view of what’s actually happening.
Yes, I know I was being paid to appear nude in film and television programs, but I swear, I never thought _people would watch them_.
BFHS is absolutely drooling right now I bet
Holy shit, never setting foot in Denmark.