Bikram's Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC
803 F.3d 1032
9th Cir.2015Background
- Bikram Choudhury developed a Sequence of 26 yoga poses and 2 breathing exercises described in his 1979 book, Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class; he later registered the book and made a supplementary 2002 registration for a “compilation of exercises.”
- Choudhury markets the Sequence as a system with specific health, fitness, and spiritual benefits and requires the poses be done in a strict order; he also taught a teacher-training course.
- In 2009 former trainees founded Evolation Yoga and offered hot-yoga classes substantially similar to the Sequence; Choudhury sued for copyright infringement in 2011.
- Evolation moved for partial summary judgment seeking a ruling that the Sequence itself is not copyrightable; the district court granted the motion, holding the Sequence is an unprotectible idea/system.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit evaluated whether the Sequence is excluded from copyright under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) (idea/expression dichotomy) and affirmed partial summary judgment for Evolation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Choudhury) | Defendant's Argument (Evolation) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sequence (ordered poses + breathing) is copyrightable or is an unprotectible idea/process/system | The Sequence is an original expressive arrangement with aesthetic qualities and thus copyrightable | The Sequence is a functional system/method to achieve health benefits and therefore an idea/process excluded by §102(b) | Held: Sequence is an unprotectible idea/process; not copyrightable |
| Whether the Sequence is protectable as a "compilation" (selection/arrangement) | The particular selection, coordination, and arrangement of poses is original and copyrightable as a compilation | The selection/arrangement is driven by functional/medical goals; compilations cannot protect underlying ideas or processes | Held: Not a copyrightable compilation because it is a system/process excluded by §102(b) |
| Whether the Sequence is protectable as a "choreographic work" | The Sequence qualifies as choreography (arranged bodily movements) and is therefore protectable | Even if it resembles choreography, the Sequence is primarily a functional process and falls within §102(b) exclusions | Held: Not copyrightable as choreographic work because it is a process/system excluded by §102(b) |
| Effect of Choudhury's copyright registrations (1979 book; 2002 supplement) | Registrations establish prima facie validity of claimed rights in the Sequence/compilation | Even if registrations create a presumption, undisputed facts show the Sequence is an idea/process excluded from protection | Held: Registration does not save protection for the Sequence; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) (factual compilations copyrightable only for original selection or arrangement; facts themselves not protectable)
- Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880) (expression of a system may be copyrighted but the underlying system/process is not)
- Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) (idea/expression dichotomy and relation to First Amendment)
- Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992) (functional ideas may require patent, not copyright)
- Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002) (meditation exercises are a process not protected by copyright)
- Publications Int’l, Ltd. v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996) (recipes/procedures are not copyrightable)
- Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157 (2d Cir. 1986) (discussion of choreography as related series of movements)
- Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entm’t, Inc., 705 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir. 2013) (copyright’s role in promoting creativity and limits of protection)