Marshall v. Marshall
| Decision Date | 30 March 2012 |
| Docket Number | 08 CV 1420 (LB) |
| Parties | ASHANTA MARSHALL, Plaintiff, v. AFRICA MARSHALL, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Plaintiff and defendant are brothers. In 2001, the brothers Marshall began producing a series of instructional videos featuring plaintiff Ashanta Marshall's hairstyling techniques. Plaintiff had years of experience in the hair industry, and defendant Africa Marshall, the younger brother, was interested in video production and was studying communications and marketing. After working together for nearly four years, the brothers fought about the business and their relationship dissolved. However, both brothers continued to promote and sell the videos through various media outlets, and they both registered copyrights with the United States Copyright Office. They now dispute their respective rights to the videos and to the use of plaintiff's image.
Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an action in the Civil Court of Kings County in 2008. Defendant found pro bono counsel who removed the case to this Court and filed three counterclaims. For three years, the brothers have fought about discovery, engaged in vigorous motion practice, and attacked each other and defendant's counsel. After completing discovery, defendant moved for summary judgment, which was granted in part and denied in part.
The parties consented to trial before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and I held a bench trial on August 1 and 2, 2011. The following claims were tried before the Court: copyright infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101-810; unfair competition pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer ProtectionAct, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); and violation of plaintiff's right to publicity under Section 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law. Defendant tried one counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment of joint authorship under the Copyright Act. Plaintiff and two witnesses, Lancelot Taylor and Malika Stokes, testified on his behalf; defendant testified for himself.
Although the brothers' testimony reflects the same basic timeline of the creation of the videos in question, they offered very different versions of the nature of their collaboration and their respective roles in the business venture. At times, it was clear to me that both brothers were embellishing; at other times, I was uncertain whether the discrepancies were due to faulty or self-serving memory, inaccurate or egocentric perceptions of the events when they occurred, a disregard for the truth, or a combination of all of the above. Regardless of which brother was more accurate, their testimony was unmistakably colored by six years of spite, anger, and dysfunction.
I find portions of both brothers' testimony to be unreliable. Ashanta Marshall was earnest and basically forthcoming in his testimony. His passion for his work was clear, yet so was his lack of business acumen, as was evidenced by the dearth of records relevant to this dispute. Ashanta's portrayal of his supervisory role over Africa's production of the videos was at times so overstated—and his portrayal of his brother's role so diminished—that I could not credit his testimony. In contrast, Africa Marshall's testimony was largely self-serving, self-important, and evasive. He spoke a great deal but said very little, peppering his testimony with technical terms and phrases that conveyed little in substance or understanding. He contradicted his own testimony with little insight as to how that might undermine his credibility.1 However, when Africa spoke about his relationship with his brother, he conveyed what appeared to be genuine emotions about fairness, family, and his hopes for reconciliation.
Plaintiff's two witnesses, Lancelot Taylor, a friend, and Malika Stokes, a cousin and model in one of the videos, provided little, if any, substantive evidence. While the Court believes that thewitnesses testified truthfully about their perceptions, these witnesses imparted very little that is helpful to resolve the parties' dispute.
Plaintiff and defendant each carry the burden of proof for their respective claims. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a), I find the following facts and conclusions of law.
The Marshall brothers had different skills from early on. Ashanta Marshall styled hair in his home as a teenager (Tr. 161), and he opened the Abode Salon on December 10, 1998 (Tr. 21-22; Ex. 2). In addition to running his own business, he worked and traveled with hair styling agencies and the Revlon cosmetics company. (Tr. 23, 51; Ex. 32.) Throughout his career, he sought to establish himself as "Ashante"—a prestigious "star stylist" and expert in his field. (Tr. 18, 99-100.) He developed a variety of hair styling techniques, gained experience in photography and instruction (Tr. 48, 141), and promoted his work and salon in various magazines and media sources (Tr. 18). From 2000 to 2008, he was featured in magazines such as Hype Hair and Sophisticates Black Hair. (Tr. 101-02.) The magazines interviewed him about trends, and articles featured him styling hair and answering questions as a "salon professional." (Tr. 102; Exs. 14, 32.) plaintiff's promotional materials and videos state that he won an award of excellence from Revlon, that his work has appeared on television shows such as The View and The Oprah Winfrey Show, and that he has worked with various celebrities and performers. (Exs. 25, 32.) To demonstrate his sense of prestige, he featured celebrities on his website and priced his products for an affluent clientele. (Tr. 99-100.) Plaintiff's cousin and friend testified that plaintiff was successful and earned good money (Tr. 113, 124, 128), and plaintiff attributed his financial success to his "star stylist" brand and image. (Tr. 100.)
Africa Marshall had little work experience aside from working for his brother (Tr. 174-75, 278), but he had an interest in production and photography (Tr. 168). He enrolled in the Fashion Institute of Technology in 1996 and earned an Associate's degree in advertising and marketing communications in2001. (Tr. 162-64.) At FIT, he studied video production and learned marketing and branding techniques, which he tried to apply to his work with his brother. (Tr. 154-55, 185.) When his work with Ashanta ended, Africa started his own production company. (Tr. 279.)
Before the videos were made, defendant worked in plaintiff's Abode Salon, where he assisted plaintiff with tasks such as booking appointments, photography, redesigning the salon's website, and promoting the salon to the media. (Tr. 21, 23-24; Ex. 1.) Plaintiff paid defendant in cash based on the tasks he completed, though plaintiff did not pay employment taxes for defendant. (Tr. 19-21, 23-24, 46-47, 56-57, 59; Ex. 1.) Plaintiff testified that he entered into a written work agreement with Africa in 2000 (Tr. 57-60), but defendant denied that any written agreement existed (Tr. 176-77). No written agreement was ever produced. At trial, plaintiff characterized defendant as an unskilled personal assistant who ran errands for him and helped at the salon (Tr. 23-24, 51-52, 63), while defendant characterized his position as a "consultant" for marketing and branding (Tr. 172-73). Africa Marshall continued to work at the salon until 2005. (Tr. 46, 236-37.)
The videos were created under the name "Hair To Go" starting in 2001. (Tr. 22-23, 152, 176.) The brothers never incorporated or formed a legal partnership, but they often referred to their enterprise as HTG Corp., HTG Co., HairVideoMall, Inc., or hairtogo.8m.com/The Abode Salon. (Tr. 230-31; Exs. 21, 26, 27, 32.) Together, the Marshalls created a series of nineteen hour-long instructional videos, as well as multiple advertisements and websites promoting "star stylist Ashante" and his various styling techniques.2 The videos feature plaintiff demonstrating step-by-step techniques on models. The videos also contain promotional sequences of photographs and advertisements, and a closing sequence with"Ashante's Word's [sic] of Wisdom," clips of outtakes, information about how to order videos, and streaming credits. (Ex. 32.) The credits attribute the hair styling to plaintiff, and the editing and photography direction to defendant. (Tr. 56, 98, 137-38; Exs. 13, 32.) The credits for five of the nineteen videos state the videos were "produced by" " " or "HTG Corp." (Exs. 13, 32.) Plaintiff provided the funding and equipment to film and promote the videos (Tr. 24, 41, 171-72, 180), and much of the filming and editing took place in the Abode Salon and in the brothers' mother's home (Tr. 43-44, 170, 178-79). Each video took about two to three hours to record. (Tr. 47.)
The precise details of the brothers' initial agreement and their actual contributions to the videos were disputed at trial; while it is clear that the filming of the videos was largely collaborative, the brothers each overstated their contributions to buttress their respective legal claims. Ashanta claimed to have sole control over Hair To Go and the video production process, while Africa depicted an equal partnership where both brothers shared decision-making power and contributed their expertise.
Ashanta testified that he conceptualized Hair To Go as a brand or "call-service" related to his Abode Salon (Tr. 21-23, 138), and that he intended from the beginning to own the videos as their sole creator and author for copyright purposes (Tr. 26, 57-58). He stated that the video project was contemplated as part of the written employment agreement the brothers signed in 2000, which stated that plaintiff would be the sole owner of the videos, and that defendant would record the videos and work in the salon. (Tr. 57-59.) He...
To continue reading
Request your trial