Ninth Circuit Holds Bikram Yoga Sequence Is An Idea And Therefore Not A Copyrightable Compilation Or Choreographic Work

The Ninth Circuit's October 8 ruling that the Bikram Yoga sequence of yoga poses and exercises is not copyrightable underscores the constitutionally based rule—embodied in Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act—that no "idea, procedure, process [or] system . . . regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied" may be copyrighted.

The plaintiff, Bikram Choudhury, is a selfproclaimed "Yogi to the stars." As the Ninth Circuit explained, he "developed a sequence of twenty-six asanas and two breathing exercises, arranged in a particular order, which he calls the 'Sequence.'" This Sequence "is practiced over the course of ninety minutes, to a series of instructions (the 'Dialogue'), in a room heated to 105 degrees Fahrenheit to simulate Choudhury's native Indian climate." Although the individual poses and breathing exercises are not original, Choudhury claims to have developed this specific sequence of poses and exercises after "many of years of research and verification . . . using modern medical measurement techniques." He further claims that the Sequence and overall system of Hatha Yoga are "capable of helping you avoid, correct, cure, heal, or at least alleviate the symptoms of almost any illness or injury."

The defendant, Evolation Yoga, was founded by two graduates of Choudhury's Bikram Yoga Teacher Training Course. Evolation Yoga offers many styles of yoga, including "hot yoga," which Choudhury asserted infringed the claimed copyright in the Sequence. The district court granted summary judgment to Evolation Yoga, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis with the "idea/expression dichotomy." The dichotomy, which "has two constitutional foundations: the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment," holds that expression of an idea is copyrightable, but the idea itself is not. Thus, in the seminal case of Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the Supreme Court held that a book describing a book-keeping system was copyrightable, but the book-keeping system itself was not. Similarly, as the Ninth Circuit noted, courts applying Baker "have routinely held that the copyright for a work describing how to perform a process does not extend to the process itself," including, for example, "meditation exercises described in a copyrighted manual on exploring the consciousness," "recipes contained in a copyrighted cookbook" and "a manual describing how to organize roller-skating races"a "system for...