Bikrams Yoga College of India LP et al v. Evolation Yoga LLC et al

Filing 38

ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: granting 25 defendants Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. (lc). Modified on 12/14/2012 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE OF
INDIA, L.P.; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY,
v.

11
12
13

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:11-cv-5506-ODW(SSx)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT [25]

EVOLATION YOGA, LLC; MARK
DROST; ZEFEA SAMSON; and DOES 1
through 10,
Defendants.

14
15

I.

16

INTRODUCTION

17

Copyrights cover an author’s creative expression of facts and ideas—the facts

18

and ideas themselves are not protected. Defendants Evolation Yoga, LLC, Mark

19

Drost, and Zefea Samson contend that they do not infringe on Plaintiff Bikram

20

Choudhury’s copyrights by teaching or performing the yoga sequence described in the

21

copyrighted works. Choudhury insists that they do infringe; the copyrights are broad

22

and cover not only the actual written or audiovisual works, but the depicted yoga

23

sequence as well—like a pantomime or choreographic work. The Court concludes

24

that the yoga sequence itself is not covered under Choudhury’s copyrights and thus,

25

there can be no infringement. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ Motion

26

for Partial Summary Judgment. (ECF No. 25.)1

27
1

28

Having carefully considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to this Motion, the
Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7–15.

II.

1

BACKGROUND

2

Bikram Choudhury developed the Bikram Yoga brand and its yoga system,

3

which includes 26 yoga poses and two breathing exercises that are always performed

4

in the same order, and in the same manner: in a room heated to 105 degree Fahrenheit

5

for precisely 90 minutes. (Compl. ¶ 17–18.) Choudhury claims that his yoga system

6

(“Sequence”) is capable of helping to avoid, correct, cure, heal, and alleviate the

7

symptoms of a variety of diseases and health issues. (UF 19–22.) He began offering

8

Bikram Yoga classes around 1971 at Bikram’s Yoga College of India. (Compl. ¶ 19.)

9

In 1994, Choudhury created the Bikram Yoga Teacher Training Course.

10

(Compl. ¶ 21.) Choudhury also wrote different books describing and depicting the

11

Sequence and obtained copyright registrations for them. (Compl. ¶¶ 31–33.) In 1979,

12

Choudhury obtained a copyright registration (TX 179-160) for a book titled “Bikram’s

13

Beginning Yoga Class.”

14

registration to his 1979 copyright (TX 5-624-003). (Compl. ¶ 32.) He also attempted

15

to register a copyright for “Bikram’s Asana Sequence” as a work of the performing

16

arts in 2002—but this was never registered by the Copyright Office. (Mot. 14.)

(Compl. ¶ 31.)

In 2002, he obtained a supplemental

17

Drost and Samson were trainees of Bikram’s Course and as a result, became

18

authorized to teach Bikram’s Basic Yoga System. (Compl. ¶¶ 38–39.) Subsequently,

19

Drost and Samson formed Evolation Yoga, LLC and opened numerous yoga studios,

20

offering yoga classes that utilize the Sequence that Bikram developed without

21

Bikram’s authorization. (Compl. ¶¶ 38, 44, 46, 47.) As a result, Plaintiffs Bikram’s

22

Yoga College of India, L.P. and Bikram Choudhury demanded that Defendants cease

23

and desist from using and teaching Bikram Yoga. (Compl. ¶ 56.) Unable to settle

24

their differences, Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendants for: (1) copyright

25

infringement; (2) trademark infringement; (3) false designation of origin; (4) dilution;

26

(5) unfair competition; (6) unfair business practices; (7) breach of contract; and

27

(8) inducing breach of contract. Plaintiffs also claim that such violations were willful.

28

(Compl. ¶¶ 59, 69, 74, 77, 79.)

2

1

Defendants now ask the Court to grant their Motion for Partial Summary

2

Judgment for noninfringement of Choudhury’s copyrights as to their use of the taught

3

Sequence.
III.

4

LEGAL STANDARD

5

Summary judgment should be granted if there are no genuine issues of material

6

fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2 Fed. R. Civ.

7

P. 56(c). The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing the absence of a

8

genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986).

9

Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must go beyond the

10

pleadings and identify specific facts through admissible evidence that show a genuine

11

issue for trial. Id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Conclusory or speculative testimony in

12

affidavits and moving papers is insufficient to raise genuine issues of fact and defeat

13

summary judgment. Thornhill’s Publ’g Co. v. GTE Corp., 594 F.2d 730, 738 (9th

14

Cir. 1979).

15

A genuine issue of material fact must be more than a scintilla of evidence, or

16

evidence that is merely colorable or not significantly probative. Addisu v. Fred

17

Meyer, 198 F.3d 1130, 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). A disputed fact is “material” where the

18

resolution of that fact might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law.

19

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1968). An issue is “genuine” if

20

the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving

21

party. Id. Where the moving and nonmoving parties’ versions of events differ, courts

22

are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most

23

favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007).

24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiffs wrongly argue that the Court may not grant summary judgment on a portion of a claim.
(Opp’n 8.) The Court is not limited to disposing of entire claims on summary-judgment motions.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 allows the Court to grant summary judgment on “part of each
claim or defense.” The Supreme Court noted, “One of the principal purposes of the summary
judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses.” Celotex Corp.
v. Caltrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323–24 (1986).

3

IV.

1

DISCUSSION

2

To establish copyright infringement, a plaintiff must prove (1) ownership of a

3

valid copyright in the infringed work, and (2) copying of the copyrighted work’s

4

original elements. Feist Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 361

5

(1991). Plaintiffs claim that they have copyrights for Choudhury’s books, audiovisual

6

works, and the Sequence. (Compl. ¶ 27–33.)

7

The issue in this Motion is whether the Sequence created by Choudhury is

8

protected under one of his various copyrights.3 But there are two reasons why the

9

Sequence is not copyrighted: 1)

Choudhury’s copyrights cover his literary and

10

audiovisual works—but only his expression of the facts and ideas contained within,

11

and not the facts and ideas themselves; and 2) even though Choudhury’s works

12

describe the Sequence (and teach one how to do it), a compilation of exercises or yoga

13

poses itself does not fall into any of the copyrightable categories under 17 U.S.C.

14

§ 102(a) and is not copyrightable under § 102(b) because it is a system or procedure.

15

A.

Copyrights cover creative expressions, not facts or ideas

16

Defendants do not presently dispute the validity of Choudhury’s copyrights.

17

Instead, they point out that the copyright registrations are only for his books and

18

audiovisual works, which depict and describe the Yoga Sequence. (Choudhury Decl.

19

Exs. H, I, O, U.) The copyright office did not issue to Choudhury a copyright

20

registration for a pantomime or choreographic work, exercise routine, or compilation

21

of postures. Plaintiffs contend that the Supplemental Registration TX 5-624-003 is a

22

registration for the Sequence. (Opp’n 9); (Choudhury Decl. Ex. N.) This is not true.

23

This registration is for a supplement to the 1979 copyright for Choudhury’s book,

24

adding the notation that Choudhury is the author of a “compilation of exercises.” (Id.)

25

In other words, the supplemental registration clarifies that Choudhury’s contribution

26

includes the Sequence; not that the registration was for the Sequence itself.

27
28

3

For this Motion, the Court assumes that Choudhury created the Sequence by modifying traditional
yoga exercises and does not reach the issue of originality.

4

1

But Plaintiffs assert that the copyrights cover the Sequence. (Opp’n 9.) That is,

2

anyone performing the Sequence, as taught by Choudhury’s books and videos,

3

commits copyright infringement.

4

within a work are not protected; only an author’s expression of them is. Shaw v.

5

Lindheim, 919 F.2d 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1990). The Sequence is a collection of facts

6

and ideas.4 There is a distinction between a creative work that compiles a series of

7

exercises and the compilation of exercises itself. The former is copyrightable, the

8

latter is not. See Feist, 499 U.S. at 357 (“Facts are never original, so the compilation

9

author can claim originality, if at all, only in the way the facts are presented.”).

10

B.

But this argument is tenuous—facts and ideas

A system of exercises or yoga poses is not copyrightable subject matter

11

Moreover, only certain categories of creative works may be copyrighted. Under

12

17 U.S.C. § 102(a), copyright protection subsists in original works of authorship,

13

which are limited to these categories: (1) literary works; (2) musical works;

14

(3) dramatic works; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic,

15

and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound

16

recordings; and (8) architectural works. The Sequence itself does not fall into any of

17

these categories.

18

The Sequence—Choudhury’s compilation of exercises and yoga poses (and not

19

the book or videos depicting the compilation)—is merely a procedure or system of

20

exercises. Regardless of the categories enumerated in § 102(a), copyright protection

21

does not “extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,

22

concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described,

23

explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 17 U.S.C. § 102(b). According to

24

the Copyright Office, a “compilation of yoga poses may be precluded from

25

registration as a functional system or process in cases where the particular movements

26

4

27
28

Plaintiffs argue that the Copyright Office has issued copyright registrations for facts and ideas,
such as the TAE-BO exercise program. (Opp’n 13.) Those copyrights are not before the Court in
this case—they may be invalid copyrights. Thus, the Court declines to consider those copyright
registrations with respect to the copyrightability of the Sequence.

5

1

and the order in which they are to be performed are said to result in improvements in

2

one’s health or physical or mental condition.”5 77 Fed. Reg. 37605, 37607 (June 22,

3

2012). Choudhury admits that the Sequence helps to prevent, cure, and alleviate

4

disease. UF 19–22. The Court can only conclude that the Sequence is a system or

5

process that is not copyrightable subject matter under § 102(b).

6

But Plaintiffs contend that the Sequence is at least copyrightable as a

7

pantomime or a choreographic work because the Sequence consists of “significant

8

gestures without speech.” 1 Nimmer § 2.07[A] at 2-67; (Opp’n 14.) However,

9

Congress contemplated copyright protection for dramatic works to be something

10

significantly more than what Plaintiffs offer here:
Congress has stated that the subject matter of choreography does not
include “social dance steps and simple routines.” H.R. Rep. 94-1476 at
54 (1976). A compilation of simple routines, social dances, or even
exercises would not be registrable unless it results in a category of
copyrightable authorship. A mere compilation of physical movements
does not rise to the level of choreographic authorship unless it contains
sufficient attributes of a work of choreography. And although a
choreographic work, such as a ballet or abstract modern dance, may
incorporate simple routines, social dances, or even exercise routines as
elements of the overall work, the mere selection and arrangement of
physical movements does not in itself support a claim of choreographic
authorship. 77 Fed. Reg. 37605, 37607 (June 22, 2012).

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

Plaintiffs argue that the Court should give little deference to the Copyright Office’s Statement of
Policy because the Copyright Office did “not produce records explaining the recent shift or even
identify those records so that the Court could determine the legitimacy of the Copyright Office’s
grounds for doing so.” (Opp’n 14, 16.) But under Skidmore, an administrative agency’s
interpretation merits deference given (1) its specialized experience, broader investigations, and
information available to the agency; and (2) the value of uniformity in administrative and judicial
interpretations of a statutory scheme. Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134, 139 (1944). The
Supreme Court has long recognized that “considerable weight should be accorded to an executive
department’s construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer, and the principle of
deference to administrative interpretations.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984). And other courts have generally given weight to the interpretation of a
statute by the Copyright Office. Cablevision Sys. Dev. Co. v. Motion Picture Ass’n of Am., Inc., 836
F.2d 599, 609 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

6

1

Thus, preferable forms of pantomimes or choreographic works—ones that

2

satisfied the fixation requirement for copyrights—are ones recorded in either the

3

Laban system of notation or as a motion picture of the dance. 1 Nimmer § 2.07[C] at

4

2-70. Choudhury’s copyrighted works are not either of those. Further, the Sequence

5

of 26 yoga poses hardly seems to fall within the definition of a pantomime or a

6

choreographic work because of the simplicity of the Sequence and the fact that it is

7

not a dramatic performance.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

And as explicitly explained by the Copyright Office, compilations of
exercises—specifically yoga exercises—are not copyrightable:
An example that has occupied the attention of the Copyright Office for
quite some time involves the copyrightability of the selection and
arrangement of preexisting exercises, such as yoga poses. Interpreting
the statutory definition of “compilation” in isolation could lead to the
conclusion that a sufficiently creative selection, coordination or
arrangement of public domain yoga poses is copyrightable as a
compilation of such poses or exercises. However, under the policy stated
herein, a claim in a compilation of exercises or the selection and
arrangement of yoga poses will be refused registration. 77 Fed. Reg.
37605, 37607 (June 22, 2012).

17
18

Although books or photographs that depict a compilation of exercises may be

19

copyrightable, the “compilation authorship would not extend to the selection,

20

coordination or arrangement of the exercises themselves that are depicted in the

21

photographs or drawings.” Id. In contrast, Plaintiffs argue that the “component parts

22

of a collective work” do not have to be original for the author to copyright the

23

compilation, but it is enough that the collection was selected, coordinated, and

24

arranged in such a way that makes the work as a whole an original work of authorship.

25

(Opp’n 10.) This is not enough in this instance involving a yoga system. The

26

Copyright Office made clear that “exercise is not a category of authorship in

27

section 102 and thus a compilation of exercises would not be copyrightable subject

28

matter.” 77 Fed. Reg. 37605, 37607 (June 22, 2012). Thus, even if the manner in

7

1

which Choudhury arranged the Sequence is unique, the Sequence would not be

2

copyrightable subject matter because individual yoga poses are not copyrightable

3

subject matter.
V.

4

CONCLUSION

5

For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that the Sequence is not

6

copyrightable subject matter; and thus, not included within the ambit of Choudhury’s

7

various copyrights for his books and audiovisual works. Defendants cannot be liable

8

for copyright infringement for teaching, using, or performing the Sequence, as

9

described and depicted in the copyrighted works.6 Therefore, the Court GRANTS

10

Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

December 14, 2012

13

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6

26
27
28

In the Motion, the parties do not adequately discuss whether Defendants, in their performance or
teaching of the Sequence, orally recite the words contained within the copyrighted book to their yoga
students. For instance, if a novel is read out loud to a public audience (assuming that the portions
read are original), this might be considered copyright infringement. 17 U.S.C. § 106(4). This order
does not cover that aspect of infringement and the Court leaves that issue for a later time.

8