Brown v. Showtime Networks, Inc.
| Decision Date | 02 August 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 18 Civ. 11078(CM)(JLC),18 Civ. 11078(CM)(JLC) |
| Citation | 394 F.Supp.3d 418 |
| Parties | Robert BROWN and the Estate of Bobbi Kristina Brown, Plaintiffs, v. SHOWTIME NETWORKS, INC., British Broadcasting Corporation, Passion Pictures Corp., Tracey Baker-Simmons, Wanda Shelley, B2 Entertainment, LLC, and Simmons Shelley Entertainment, LLC, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Christopher Lloyd Brown, Brown & Rosen LLC, Boston, MA, for Plaintiffs.
Samuel Bayard, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, New York, NY, James Walker, Jr., Pro Hac Vice, Walker & Associates, LLP, Atlanta, GA, Jason L. Abelove, Law Office of Jason L. Abelove, P.C., Garden City, NY, Lamont Ramsay Bailey, Bailey & Bailey, LLC, Springfield Gardens, NY, for Defendants.
Plaintiffs Robert "Bobby" Brown ("Brown") and the Estate of Bobbi Kristina Brown ("the Estate") bring this action against Showtime Networks, Inc. ("Showtime") and British Broadcasting Corporation ("BBC"). Plaintiffs also named as Defendants Passion Pictures Corp., Tracey Baker-Simmons, Wanda Shelley, B2 Entertainment, LLC ("B2"), and Simmons Shelley Entertainment, LLC. The gravamen of Plaintiffs' Complaint (hereinafter referred to as the "Complaint") is that Showtime and BBC used allegedly unauthorized footage of the Browns in a documentary film on the life of Whitney Houston, titled Whitney: Can I Be Me . (Compl. dated Nov. 28, 2018, Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege violations of 43(a) of the Lanham Act, as well as state law claims of right of publicity violations and tortious interference with contractual relations.
BBC now moves to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and Defendants move to dismiss certain counts for failure to state a claim.
For the reasons set forth below, BBC's motion to dismiss is granted. Defendants motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. However, because the only federal claim in the Complaint is dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the counts that remain.
Plaintiff Bobby Brown is a "legendary singer" and "international superstar" who has sold millions of albums. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 55.) He is best known for his work in the musical group New Edition and solo singing career. (Id. ¶ 12.) Brown is also well-known as the ex-husband of the late singer Whitney Houston. (Id. ¶¶ 12–13.) He is a California resident. (Id. ¶ 3.)
Brown and Houston had a daughter together, Bobbi Kristina Brown, who died in Georgia in 2015. (Id. ¶¶ 12, 24.) Brown asserts that information about him, Houston, and Bobbi Kristina is "very valuable and of interest to the public." (Id. ¶ 20.)
Defendant Showtime is a television network headquartered in New York. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendant BBC is a television network headquartered in the United Kingdom. (Id. ¶ 6.) Passion Pictures Corp. is a film production company headquartered in New York. (Id. ¶ 7.) Tracey Baker-Simmons and Wanda Shelley are film and television producers and Georgia residents, and were the executive producers of the reality television program Being Bobby Brown . (Id. ¶¶ 8–9, Ex. G, Agreement § 5(a).) B2 is a now-dissolved film and television production company located in Georgia, and was owned by Baker-Simmons and Shelley. (Compl. ¶ 10.) Simmons Shelley Entertainment, LLC is a film and television production company located in Georgia that is owned by Baker-Simmons and Shelley. (Id. ¶ 11.)
In 2004, Brown, through his now dissolved production company, Brown House Entertainment, Inc. ("Brownhouse"), entered into an agreement ("the Agreement") with B2 to create a reality television program. (Id. ¶¶ 60–63; Ex. G.) The program, Being Bobby Brown, starred Brown and aired on Bravo for one season in 2005. (Compl. ¶¶ 31, 63.)
The Agreement authorized the filming, taping and recording of Brown's life and portions of his "life story," including his relationships with family and friends, for the television program. (Ex. G, § 2(b)(i).) The Agreement also included a "confidentiality" clause: "Both parties shall keep confidential the Project [the reality television program] and any ideas, concepts, stories plots [sic ], themes or other material related to the Project unless express written consent is provided by the parties." (Id. § 6.)
In 2016, Showtime and BBC sought to make a documentary charting the life and influence of the late singer Whitney Houston. (Compl. ¶ 29, Ex. C.) On June 1, 2016, film director and producer Nick Broomfield contacted Brown's attorney by email to request an interview with Brown for the film. (Id. ) Brown declined the interview request. (Compl. ¶ 29.)
Showtime and BBC released Whitney: Can I Be Me ("the film") in 2017. (Id. ¶ 13.) Showtime distributed the film to air in the United States in August 2017. (Id. ¶¶ 13, 17.) BBC aired the film in the United Kingdom. The film was also licensed by production companies to air in Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. (Compl. ¶ 20.)
The film documents the life and career of Houston, noting her purported family problems and drug addiction, and highlights her legacy as a trailblazer for female African-American singers. (Ex. D.) It includes never-before-seen concert footage of Houston's 1999 world tour, public interview excerpts of Houston, and interviews with people in her "inner circle," such as her family, legal advisor, backing vocalists, and close friends. (Id. )
The film, which lasts one hour and forty-four minutes, contains approximately thirty minutes of footage depicting Brown and his late daughter Bobbi Kristina, all of which was derived from Being Bobby Brown.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 14–15, 33.)
Brown and the Estate take issue with the film on two grounds.
First, Brown and the Estate allege that Showtime and BBC used their names, likenesses and personas without their consent in (i ) the film; (ii ) the credits of the film; and (iii ) the marketing and promotion of the film. (Id. ¶¶ 19, 28–30.)
Brown and the Estate never signed releases for their images to be used in the film, and claim Defendants do not have "proper title" to use their footage from Being Bobby Brown . (Id. ¶¶ 15–16.) Brown alleges the film contains unauthorized footage of musical performances of himself and Bobbi Kristina. (Id. ¶ 22.)
The film's end credits list "B2 Brownhouse Entertainment in Association with Simmons Shelley Entertainment LLC" as an archive source. (Id. ¶ 19; Ex. B.) Brown claims that this credit suggests that he consented and authorized the use of his image and voice in the film, "which is inaccurate and false." (Compl. ¶ 56.)
Brown claims Defendants used his name, persona and likeness in the marketing and promotion of the film. (Id. ¶ 30.) Defendants provided "screeners" of the film to members of the press, giving the press the opportunity to view the film and write reviews in advance of the release date. (Id. ) Brown alleges that this was part of the intentional "marketing strategy" of the defendants—Defendants provided the screeners to the press, knowing that the reviews would mention Brown, and, thus, would draw more attention to the film by discussing Brown. (Id. ) Brown and the Estate provided several film reviews attached as exhibits, and each review briefly mentions Brown. (See Exs. D, E, F.) Because Defendants utilized Brown's likeness in the marketing and promotion of the film, Brown claims, it caused confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, and approval of the film, and as such, has damaged him. (Compl. ¶¶ 55–57.)
Second, Brown alleges that Baker-Simmons, Shelley, B2 and Simmons Shelley Entertainment breached the Agreement by providing Defendants footage from Being Bobby Brown to use in the film, and Defendants tortuously interfered with the Agreement. (Id. ¶¶ 33–34, 72–79, Ex. G.) Brown informed Showtime and BBC in 2017 that they could not use the Being Bobby Brown footage, but Defendants continued to exhibit, distribute, and broadcast the film with the knowledge that the use of Brown's image and likeness was not authorized. (Id. ¶¶ 36, 79.2 )
Brown and the Estate filed this action on November 28, 2018, asserting the following causes of action: Brown's right of publicity under California Civil Code § 3344 against all Defendants (Count 1); Brown's right of publicity under California common law against all Defendants (Count 2); the Estate's right of publicity under Georgia common law against all Defendants (Count 3); Brown's claim under § 43(a) of the Lanham Act against all Defendants (Count 4); Brown's claim for breach of contract against B2 (Count 5); Brown and the Estate's "claim" for a permanent injunction against Showtime, BBC, and Passion Pictures Corp. (Count 6); and Brown's claim for tortious interference with contractual relations against all Defendants except B2 (Count 7).
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed its claims against Passion Pictures Corp. on March 25, 2019, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(l)(A)(i). (Dkt. No. 40.)
On April 2, 2019, BBC moved to dismiss the Complaint as against it for want of personal jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). (Dkt. No. 50.)
That same day, Showtime and BBC moved to dismiss the claims against them for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). (Id. )
On June 11, 2019, counsel for the remaining Defendants—Baker-Simmons, Shelley, B2, and Simmons Shelley Entertainment, LLC (the "Simmons/Shelley Defendants")—submitted a letter in which they stated, "After reviewing [Showtime and BBC's] motion, it became apparent that these defenses apply similarly to the Simmons/Shell[e]y Defendants as well," and so they asked that the Court treat their letter "as a letter motion to amend the pleadings such that my clients can join in Showtime's pending motion to dismiss." (Dkt. No. 62.)
I really do not understand the phrase in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cousteau Soc'y, Inc. v. Cousteau, Civil No. 3:19-cv-1106(AWT)
...artistic work, the Second Circuit has expanded its two-prong test to apply to artistic works more broadly." Brown v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 3d 418, 442 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Cliffs Notes, Inc., 886 F.2d at 495 ). Rogers set out a two-pronged test to determine whether an art......
-
Fahey v. Breakthrough Films & Television Inc.
...foreign defendant despite the defendant's “various business dealings with New York-based companies”); Brown v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 394 F.Supp.3d 418, 432-33 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (finding no general jurisdiction even though defendant had entered into contracts with multiple New York-based co......
-
Haynes v. Transunion, LLC
... ... ; EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC; EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC.; BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; CHASE BANK USA, N.A.; WELLS FARGO N.A.; DISCOVER ... furnishers in Count Two. As recognized in Brown v ... Showtime Networks, Inc ., 394 F.Supp.3d 418, 429 ... ...
-
Powers-Barnhard v. Butler
...uses, or possesses any property within New York that serves as the basis for plaintiffs' cause of action." Brown v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 3d 418, 436 (S.D.N.Y. 2019). Plaintiff argues that "while semantically USAV does not own or lease real property within the State of New Y......
-
The First Amendment and the Right(s) of Publicity.
...speech from actionable misuse of a person's name or likeness for commercial gain."); see, e.g.. Brown v. Showtime Networks, Inc., 394 F. Supp. 3d 418, 437-38 (S.D.N.Y. (227.) See POST, supra note 205, at 27-60 (concluding that the First Amendment protects commercial speech to maintain the "......