Reddit Mod Jailed for Sharing Movie Sex Scenes in Rare "moral Rights" Verdict
Postedabout 2 months agoActiveabout 2 months ago
arstechnica.comOtherstory
calmmixed
Debate
60/100
Copyright LawOnline ModerationFree Speech
Key topics
Copyright Law
Online Moderation
Free Speech
A Reddit moderator was jailed for sharing movie sex scenes, sparking debate about the 'moral rights' verdict and its implications for online content sharing, with commenters questioning the ruling's fairness and consistency.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
1h
Peak period
3
1-2h
Avg / period
2
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Nov 11, 2025 at 2:31 PM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Nov 11, 2025 at 3:46 PM EST
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 1-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Nov 12, 2025 at 12:25 AM EST
about 2 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45891719Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 1:51:04 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The core of the problem boils down to, "Would a reasonable person in Denmark view this supercut as presenting the actors in a disreputable light?", and that's not possible to answer in generic without case-by-case consideration. Answering your question would require a court judgment, but perhaps these supercut examples will help you predict the outcome for any specific topic.
> In Denmark, the “right of integrity means that even in cases where you are allowed to make use of a work, you are not allowed to change it or use it in a way or in a context that infringes the author’s literary or artistic reputation or uniqueness”
Is a supercut of one thousand actors nude without any additional context infringing on their artistic reputation? Yes, by court decree, it is; sexuality and nudity are 'fraught' topics with significant cultural connotations, and a judgement affirming that such is misuse under Danish law has been issued, and this is an easy outcome to predict taking cultural mores and contexts into account.
Is a supercut of one thousand actors saying the word "Ballast" without any additional context infringing on their artistic reputation? Probably not; the word "Ballast" is not a 'fraught' term with significant cultural connotations, and so a judgment of this specific sort is unlikely.
Is a supercut of one thousand actors saying a racially-charged word without any additional context infringing on their artistic reputation? Most likely; if the word is a 'fraught' term, then that supercut is painting the actors in a disreputable light, and that's the sort of infringement that's prohibited by Danish law.
The most challenging case to predict I can think of would be whether a supercut of actor blooper reels, which are released to the public with the full awareness of the actors, would impose an additional degree of disreputability that is not already imposed by the previously-released reels.
(I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice.)