Heated Dispute: Why Bikram Yoga Is Not Copyrightable

There has been so much palaver about the so-called 'internet of things' that society may have lost track of all those ideas, concepts, musings and notions that people are attempting to turn into utterly tangible, cold, hard cash. 

Courts in the US and elsewhere are turning a decidedly frosty glare towards this rush to claim ownership of the ephemeral and intangible. The current judicial attitude appears to be that the claims have gone from excessive to fanciful to downright delusional.

There also appears to be a lingering suspicion among the jurist class that these attempts at establishing digital droit de seigneur may be hindering innovation and, while they are about it, attempting to taking credit for human capital whose creation was, to be fair,  uncertain and is probably widely, as well as indistinctly, attributable. 

One of the latest examples of this sterner approach is the rejection of an appeal by Bikram Choudhury, the founder of Bikram Yoga. Bikram - the yoga - is noted for being practiced in 105F degree heat. Among the ostensible benefits of the Bikram 'sequence' are the avoidance, correction and healing of myriad diseases and health issues.

No one is disputing the health claims, but questions about whether a system of exercises can be copyrighted have been settled for now. The answer, at least in the US, is no.

There have also been attempts to copyright ancient Chinese medicinal arts and similar indigenous healing secrets from other parts of the world. The issue is not that these practices have value - or not - but that there are some abstractions that belong to mankind. Individuals are free to use them to generate income for themselves, but not to charge economic rents to others. The more that individuals and enterprises accept this - whether it be Apple vs Samsung or Bikram's Yoga College of India LP v Evolution Yoga - the fewer resources will be wasted on ancillary distractions and the more likely that real value will be created. JL

Karin Aldama reports in IP Litigation Update:

The court found that a “system of exercises or yoga poses is not copyrightable subject matter.”
The Central District of California held that a sequence of exercises performed when practicing Bikram Yoga cannot be copyrighted and granted partial summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claims. Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, No. 2:11-cv-5506-ODW (SSx), 2012 WL 6548505 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2012).
Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. and its founder, Bikram Choudhury developed the Bikram Yoga system, “which includes 26 yoga poses and two breathing exercises that are always performed in the same order, and in the same manner:  in a room heated to 105 degree Fahrenheit for precisely 90 minutes.” Id. at *1. Choudhury claims that this yoga system (the “Sequence”) can help avoid, correct, and heal various diseases and health issues. Choudhury has created various books and audiovisual materials describing and depicting the Sequence and has obtained copyright registrations for those materials. Although he attempted to obtain a copyright for “Bikram’s Asana Sequence” as a work of performing art, the Copyright Office never registered that copyright. Id.
Choudhury also developed the Bikram Yoga Teacher Training Course, which defendants Drost and Samson attended. After completing the course, “Drost and Samson formed Evolation Yoga, LLC and opened numerous yoga studios, offering yoga classes that utilize the Sequence . . . without Bikram’s authorization.” Id. Bikram demanded that Drost and Samson cease operations and eventually brought suit against them for, inter alia, copyright infringement, claiming that their use of the Sequence in their classes violated Choudhury’s copyrights.
The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the Sequence itself was not protected under any of Choudhury’s copyright registrations. The court agreed and dismissed the copyright infringement claims relating to the defendants’ use of the Sequence.
First, the court found that Choudhury’s copyright registrations were for his books and audiovisual works only, and that the Copyright Office had not issued him a registration “for a pantomime or choreographic work, exercise routine, or compilation of postures.” Id. at *2. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the registrations for the books and audiovisual materials covered the Sequence, finding that the Sequence was “a collection of facts and ideas” and reasoning that “facts and ideas within a work are not protected; only an author’s expression of them is.” Id. at *3 (citing Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1990)).

Under 17 U.S.C. § 102(a), only certain categories of original works are copyrightable, and the only category that the Sequence could even arguably fit into was “pantomimes and choreographic works.” But both the Copyright Office and Congress had stated that like “social dance steps and simple routines,” “a compilation of yoga poses” does not fall within that category, particularly if “the particular movements and the order in which they are to be performed are said to result in improvements in one’s health or physical or mental condition,” and are not a dramatic choreographic work, “such as a ballet or abstract modern dance.” Bikram’s Yoga Coll., 2012 WL 6548505, at *3 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 77 Fed. Reg. 37,605, 37,607 (June 22, 2012) and citing H.R. Rep. 94-1476, at 54 (1976)).Because Choudhury claimed that the Sequence had healing and preventative qualities, and it is simple and not a dramatic performance, the court could “only conclude that the Sequence . . . is not copyrightable subject matter under § 102(b).” Id. The court therefore granted the motion for partial summary judgment relating to use of the Sequence.
Lesson Learned:  Exercise routines and systems that are designed to improve health cannot be copyrighted, even though creative works depicting them can be.