A digital art project designed to highlight the role of an Icelandic fishing conglomerate in an international corruption scandal will remain offline after a British judge ruled in favor of the multinational yesterday (November 14).

In September, Master Paul Teverson, in the intellectual property division of the High Court in London, heard from conceptual artist Odee Fridriksson that the website he had created using the same font, color scheme and branding as Samerji’s, one of Iceland’s largest companies, and purportedly contains an apology from the company for its role in scandal known as Fishrotit was part of a larger artwork that includes not only the digital component, but also an installation (with the words “Sorry” projected at the Reykjavik Art Museum) and a social element that includes media attention and responses public at Fishrot.

A whistleblower alleges that over several years, a number of Namibian government officials and others were bribed by Samerji to secure valuable fishing quotas. As a result, the small South African nation was defrauded of millions of dollars and its marine resources were unfairly exploited. A trial was due to begin in Namibia’s capital, Windhoek, in 2023, but delays — and sudden death of the Namibian president earlier in the year — have seen proceedings delayed at least twice. Meanwhile, officials remain in custody and the Samerji leadership has denied ordering bribes, despite recent reports of a bunch of messages that say the opposite.

Fridriksson, a student at the University of Bergen in Norway, who changed his name after the previous hearing in London and is now known simply as Odee, had relied on a series of defenses in court, where he represented himself with the support of Paris . firm based at Avant Garde Lawyers. In addition to the fact that it claims the website and “bogus apologies” – which included a promise from Samerji to work with the London-based NGO Refund to seek to recover the money spent on the baths — was a travesty or a pastiche, he demanded that his right to free expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights be respected.

While Master Teverson acknowledged in a 27-page ruling that the Fishrot scandal “is a current event and still under investigation”, he “did not accept that it was realistic to invoke Article 10 where a published completely false and misleading press release. “.

According to the judge, Odee “crossed the line between fair dealing and unfair dealing”. He added: “It is clear from the design of the website that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s copyright on the logo (…) by copying.” Regarding the installation at the Reykjavik museum, the ruling noted that “while it clearly sought to embarrass the applicant, (it) did not attempt to masquerade as an official statement or website.”

While Samerji previously sought an injunction that resulted in the removal and temporary shutdown of the company’s fake website, the company has yet to clarify what other remedies it may seek. A date for a hearing to explore these issues is expected before Christmas, with Teverson saying he hoped that “given the early stage at which the injected role was granted, the costs of an inquiry could be avoided by the claimant accepting a small sum “.

Samerji sought to litigate in London because he claims the fake website has damaged the goodwill he has built up through his UK business, which he operates through UK subsidiaries. These businesses, Aldea and Seagold – which is now controlled by the son of Samerji’s chief executive – supply fish to a number of supermarkets and fast food outlets. Seagold representatives did not immediately respond Art newspaperrequests for his comments.

Talking to The GuardianSamerji’s chief executive, Thorsteinn Már Baldvinsson, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, saying: “This ruling must be a serious matter of consideration for academic institutions that have given their blessing to all-too-obvious trademark infringements under the guise of expression artistic”.

David García, emeritus professor and specialist in tactical media at Bournemouth University, said Art newspaper he does not “strongly agree” with the judgment.

“It’s a question of what constitutes satirical and the right to violate traditional copyright rules if you have satirical intent — and that’s a well-tried defense,” says García. “There is precedent for this sort of thing, and perhaps the most famous is the work of The Yes Men, who convinced the BBC that they were senior executives of Dow Chemical (which bought Union Carbide, whose Indian pesticide plant caused a toxic disaster for environment). killing and disabling thousands of people in 1984). They apologized for the death and destruction they caused and pledged to pay compensation and because it was the BBC, everyone believed them. This was a very similar case of artists holding companies accountable that act with a lot of impunity.”

Odee says Art newspaper that he “wasn’t at all surprised by the outcome” but was concerned that it “could have a chilling effect on other artists who want to make work that questions and critiques important issues”.

“The decision could be a deterrent for others, as well as for me, because maybe galleries wouldn’t want to be sued,” says the artist. “The purpose of this artwork was to shine a light on corporate responsibility, and I think we can say that it has served its purpose. But this ruling is not the final chapter.”