Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block] | Note 6. Commitments and Contingencies On May 2, 2012, Sean Patterson, the former President of the Company’s subsidiary, Wilhelmina International, Ltd. (“Wilhelmina International”), filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, against the Company, Wilhelmina International and Mark Schwarz, the Company’s Chairman of the Board, asserting claims for alleged breach of Mr. Patterson’s expired employment agreement (the “Employment Agreement”) with Wilhelmina International, defamation, and declaratory relief with respect to the alleged invalidity and unenforceability of the Employment Agreement’s non-competition and non-solicitation provisions. The Company and Wilhelmina International asserted counterclaims against Mr. Patterson for breach of the Employment Agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and injunctive relief. On May 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Mr. Patterson’s defamation claim, and granted Mr. Patterson’s cross-motion for leave to file an amended defamation claim. Patterson filed an Amended Complaint on May 15, 2014, repeating the claims for alleged breach of contract and declaratory relief, and filing and amended defamation claim. The Company and Wilhelmina International filed an Answer to the Amended Complaint on June 17, 2014, and again asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and for injunctive relief. Patterson replied to those counterclaims on June 27, 2014. Discovery has now been completed, and the case is on the trial calendar. The parties have been ordered to engage in a second mediation. The Company believes Mr. Patterson's claims are without merit, and, in the event the case is not settled in the mediation or otherwise, intends to continue to vigorously defend itself and pursue the counterclaims. On October 24, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit brought by former Wilhelmina model Alex Shanklin and others (the “Shanklin Litigation”), naming the Company’s subsidiaries Wilhelmina International and Wilhelmina Models, Inc. (the “Wilhelmina Subsidiary Parties”), was initiated in New York State Supreme Court (New York County) by the same lead counsel who represented plaintiffs in the prior, now-dismissed action brought by Louisa Raske (the “Raske Litigation”) . In July 2015, an action was commenced against Wilhelmina Models, Inc. by a model previously under contract to Wilhelmina, Kimberly Forbes, claiming that Wilhelmina had authorized the re-use of certain of her photos, allegedly without her authorization, without paying her; asserting that the IRS had asserted claims against her arising out of an IRS Form 1099 issued by Wilhelmina with respect to payments she had not received; and seeking an unspecified amount in compensatory damages and $1,000 in exemplary damages. When the model informally brought the matter to its attention prior to commencing litigation, Wilhelmina acknowledged owing her compensation she had not received because of her change of address, and offered to pay her in full and reimburse her for related costs (although the exact amount has not been calculated, it is not a material amount). Despite that fact, this action was thereafter commenced. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the action to the extent it seeks in excess of the amount the Company offered to Ms. Forbes. In addition to the legal proceedings disclosed herein, the Company is also engaged in various legal proceedings that are routine in nature and incidental to its business. None of these routine proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, are believed, in the Company's opinion, to have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position or its results of operations. As of June 30, 2015, a number of the Company’s employees were covered by employment agreements that vary in length from one to three years. As of June 30, 2015, total compensation payable under the remaining contractual term of these agreements was approximately $4,042. In addition, the employment agreements contain non-compete provisions ranging from six months to one year following the term of the applicable agreement. Therefore, subject to certain exceptions, as of June 30, 2015, invoking the non-compete provisions would require the Company to compensate additional amounts to the covered employees during the non-compete period in the amount of approximately $4,693. During the three six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, the Company paid $16 and $0 compensation cost in connection with certain non-compete and contractual arrangements of former employees, respectively. |