People have been taking splices of movies to make actors appear in ridiculous scenes forever. Would there have been the same ruling if it were not sex scenes?
> Would there have been the same ruling if it were not sex scenes?
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.
People have been taking splices of movies to make actors appear in ridiculous scenes forever. Would there have been the same ruling if it were not sex scenes?
> Would there have been the same ruling if it were not sex scenes?
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.)
The ars article mentioned he confessed to the charged crime, is that the real issue, and a lawyer could have argued for a reasonable outcome ?