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,” a resource for Danish researchers noted.
Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.
Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe "prison" sentences like this are conditional sentences.
Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.
What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don't like. So they don't mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.
And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.
Believe it or not, but there are externalities to the polemics you are describing.
The ostentatious posturing (I am a tiny minority that is virtuous, everyone else just wants to punish people and doesn't want the law to apply to everyone equally) is pretty ignorant. I've lived in multiple countries across North America, Europe and Asia, it's clear that you haven't thought about this.
It's comically easy to find well known (locally) examples where even the non polemical version of your arguement doesn't hold.
EDIT: I would appreciate a counter argument from people who don't agree. I am genuinely curious, because to me this seems like common sense. And I can provide multiple example from different cultures about why this rhetoric does not sound convincing.
I don't think the reference to "ostentatious posturing" is uncharitable. Just look at the text. This copytext is pretty standard and clearly aimed at self-aggrandization.
The qoute says the "authors", so this law is not exclusively tied to actors, but generally works of art and the people involved in creating it. Thats why I called out things like remakes.
And while you are right that in many of my examples there would probably be contracts to avoid these issues, my point was to show how easy it is to break this law (and that copyright owners do it all the time themselves).
Also, fair use for parodies is not a thing in all countries - not sure if it is in Denmark.
Fair Use exists only in the US. I believe it is part of the reason why the US became so culturally dominant. It certainly is why the internet is US dominated. European copyright laws are stifling.
It's a movie. Like you and I would go see at the cinema. But it happens to be pornographic in nature. These actually used to come on DVD before the Internet was a thing, and would be sold at the back of the DVD store or blockbuster behind a curtain.
It is created and published with a financial incentive, and is otherwise public.
If you’re serious, Reddit had/has an extreme fixation for clipping scenes with Alexandra Daddario, Jennifer Lawrence, Megan Fox, Sydney Sweeney, and Ana De Armas.
They’d get posted to /r/celebs and watch it for the plot.
The prosecution successfully argued that by taking scenes out of their original artistic context and sexualizing them, the defendant violated the integrity of the actors and directors....
One scene featured actress Signe Egholm Olsen in ‘Nordkraft’
What the fuck is this stupid law? An actress can consent to film a nude scene, but if you share the scene she filmed for you to watch, you’ve somehow violated her moral rights?
24 Comments
iii@mander.xyz · 104 pts · 302d
Infringes reputation is so sooo broad. It comes down to who does the judge like the most, no? Reddit mods will always be way down on the list, as the judicial inclined tend to be technologically illiterate.
Also, the reddit mod is not jailed. In most of europe "prison" sentences like this are conditional sentences.
jacksilver@lemmy.world · 44 pts · 302d
Yeah, it also seems weird cause things like remakes, parodies, trailers, etc. all would technically violate that law.
iii@mander.xyz · 44 pts · 302d
Someone once explained it to me.
Some think the law should describe illegal behaviour. And that the law should apply the same to everyone. Those people are a minority.
What happens in practice is that most people just want to be able to punish people they don't like. So they don't mind overly broad, generic laws, as in their mind it will only be used against the other. Especially in (former) high-trust societies.
And in practice the selective enforcement can work for a long, long time, too. Until a shift of power occurs, and the same laws are enacted just as selectively, but directed differently. Then they surprise pikachu.
Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 301d
Believe it or not, but there are externalities to the polemics you are describing.
The ostentatious posturing (I am a tiny minority that is virtuous, everyone else just wants to punish people and doesn't want the law to apply to everyone equally) is pretty ignorant. I've lived in multiple countries across North America, Europe and Asia, it's clear that you haven't thought about this.
It's comically easy to find well known (locally) examples where even the non polemical version of your arguement doesn't hold.
EDIT: I would appreciate a counter argument from people who don't agree. I am genuinely curious, because to me this seems like common sense. And I can provide multiple example from different cultures about why this rhetoric does not sound convincing.
I don't think the reference to "ostentatious posturing" is uncharitable. Just look at the text. This copytext is pretty standard and clearly aimed at self-aggrandization.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 3 pts · 302d
Except a remake would not use the original actor’s image, a trailer is part of marketing the actor agreed to, and parodies are covered by fair use.
jacksilver@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 302d
The qoute says the "authors", so this law is not exclusively tied to actors, but generally works of art and the people involved in creating it. Thats why I called out things like remakes.
And while you are right that in many of my examples there would probably be contracts to avoid these issues, my point was to show how easy it is to break this law (and that copyright owners do it all the time themselves).
Also, fair use for parodies is not a thing in all countries - not sure if it is in Denmark.
General_Effort@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 301d
Fair Use exists only in the US. I believe it is part of the reason why the US became so culturally dominant. It certainly is why the internet is US dominated. European copyright laws are stifling.
ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de · 1 pts · 302d
Do you even know if that's true for Denmark? It is in the US, but I doubt it is, globally.
dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net · 4 pts · 302d
Seems like this was based on the people whose images were being exploited complaining to the court, so their view of what infringes their reputation.
Scrollone@feddit.it · 65 pts · 302d
Damn, this is seriously fucked up and dystopian.
You shoot a movie, why cannot I share my favourite scenes with other people?
frongt@lemmy.zip · -31 pts · 302d
Same reason you can't turn someone's social media photos into a porno mag for sexual gratification. It's unethical and exploitative.
sad_detective_man@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 32 pts · 302d
A film is wildly different from somebody's social media posts
frongt@lemmy.zip · -12 pts · 302d
In what way?
isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca · 16 pts · 301d
It's a movie. Like you and I would go see at the cinema. But it happens to be pornographic in nature. These actually used to come on DVD before the Internet was a thing, and would be sold at the back of the DVD store or blockbuster behind a curtain.
It is created and published with a financial incentive, and is otherwise public.
falseWhite@lemmy.world · 47 pts · 302d
krooklochurm@lemmy.ca · 13 pts · 302d
Right?
What the fuck, Denmark?
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 35 pts · 302d
Ohmagerd! Which actresses nude scenes was he sharing so I can make sure I don't share them?
panda_abyss@lemmy.ca · 26 pts · 302d
If you’re serious, Reddit had/has an extreme fixation for clipping scenes with Alexandra Daddario, Jennifer Lawrence, Megan Fox, Sydney Sweeney, and Ana De Armas.
They’d get posted to /r/celebs and watch it for the plot.
iii@mander.xyz · 14 pts · 302d
I'd assume they're danish actors based on the article
tidderuuf@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 302d
the subreddit ThatTrueDetectiveSceneWithAlexandraDaddario was peak reddit times.
Was /r/TTDSWAD for anyone curious
Scrollone@feddit.it · 0 pts · 302d
Yeah but this was on a Danish subreddit, focusing on Danish actresses.
I bet there was a lot of delicious content, but the sub has been banned.
offthink@lemmy.ml · 7 pts · 301d
From the TorrentFreak article referenced by Ars Techina (https://torrentfreak.com/redditor-convicted-for-sharing-nude-scenes-in-landmark-moral-rights-copyright-case):
moobythegoldensock@infosec.pub · 15 pts · 301d
What the fuck is this stupid law? An actress can consent to film a nude scene, but if you share the scene she filmed for you to watch, you’ve somehow violated her moral rights?
MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 301d
Fuck Reddit and Fuck Spez.
bigbabybilly@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 302d
Title had me smiling in the first half. Ngl.