Odee Friðriksson stands against the powerful Fishing Group, which maintains its innocence and asserts its rights

High Court to Hear Appeal in Samherji vs. Friðriksson Case, Raising Questions on Artistic Freedom and Corporate Accountability

UNITED KINGDOM
Friday, June 13, 2025, 00:10 (GMT + 9)

The London appeal, set for June 18-20, will scrutinize whether artwork critiquing corporate corruption, as highlighted by the Fishrot Files, is protected artistic expression or subject to legal silencing.

LONDON, England – The High Court of Justice in London is poised to hear a significant appeal in the case of Samherji v. Friðriksson from June 18 to 20, 2025. The hearing will consider Odee Friðriksson's application for permission to appeal a summary judgment issued against his artwork, "We're Sorry," and if granted, proceed directly to the full appeal. The proceedings are open to the public.

Artwork Challenged After Fishrot Revelations

The appeal directly challenges a November 2024 court decision that found Friðriksson's conceptual performance piece, "We're Sorry," constituted passing off, malicious falsehood, and copyright infringement. Notably, Samherji, the Icelandic fishing giant, has dropped its previous claims of trademark infringement.

"We're Sorry" is an artwork specifically designed to spotlight Samherji's alleged involvement in Namibia, a focus directly tied to the Fishrot Files. These files, exposed by a whistleblower in 2019, revealed accusations that Samherji paid millions in bribes to Namibian officials in exchange for lucrative fishing quota rights. Friðriksson contends that his artwork sought to highlight precisely this alleged corruption.

Photo: odee.is

Stakes for Artistic and Political Expression

Despite the initial ruling in Samherji's favor on these specific claims, Friðriksson maintains that the judgment imposes disproportionate restrictions on artistic and political expression. He argues that "We're Sorry" is protected artistic expression, functioning as a satirical protest in the public interest.

The core of the appeal addresses fundamental questions concerning the right to parody and critique corporate power. It will examine whether an artwork that exposes alleged institutional harm can be legally silenced by the very entity it holds accountable.

Friðriksson hopes the High Court of Justice in London will accept his arguments

Regardless of the outcome, the case continues to ignite debate about free expression, corporate influence, and the boundaries of public discourse when confronted by corporate litigation. The verdict is anticipated to have broader implications for artists and activists who seek to expose corporate abuse, particularly in defense of communities, like those in Namibia, that may bear the costs of such actions.

editorial@seafood.media
www.seafood.media

Print