A federal judge tossed Anderson’s copyright claim against former employee (and current competitor), Megan Roup, for alleged infringement of Anderson’s the “Tracy Anderson Method” dance routines captured on training DVDs. 

We have blogged about this case before (see this post and this post). The short version: Roup worked for Anderson’s studios as a trainer for six years before departing in 2017 to create her own choreograph/dance cardio workout called “The Sculpt Society.” Feeling betrayed (no doubt) by her former protégé, Anderson’s company filed suit in July 2022 against Roup and her competing fitness company. 

Anderson asserted (among other claims) that her fitness routines were copyright-protected choreographic works and that Roup’s workouts infringe upon those copyrights. Specifically, Anderson alleged that Roup infringed on Anderson’s copyright protected DVDs not by copying the DVDs themselves, but by copying the underlying routines captured in the footage. Roup did not dispute that similarities exist between the competing dance/choreograph routines; instead, she argued on summary judgment that: (1) the routines depicted in the Tracy Anderson Method DVDs do not constitute protectable expression, and (2) even if they did, the routines do not rise to the level of protectable “choreography.”

Copyright protection does not extend to all forms of dance or movement – in particular social dances and simple routines are not eligible for protection. Instead, protection is afforded only to “choreographic works” (a subset of dance) that are original and meet the other statutory requirements of copyrightable subject matter. In the Ninth Circuit, copyrightable choreography is defined as “the composition and arrangement of a related series of dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent whole,” whereas uncopyrightable dance is defined as “static and kinetic succession[ ] of bodily movement in certain rhythmic and spatial relationships.” Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc., 85 F.4th 931, 940 (9th Cir. 2023) (adopting the definitions set forth in U.S. Copyright Office, Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). But there is no bright line distinction between dance and choreographic; many works fall somewhere in the middle of the dance-choreography continuum.

What about dance-style fitness routines like those offered by Anderson and Roup? Are they subject to protection under copyright law as choreographic works?

To address this question, the court applied a two-prong test. First, the threshold question is whether the work constitutes protectable expression, as opposed to an idea, process, or system which is not subject to protection. (See17 U.S.C. § 102(b)). If the answer is no, the analysis stops there because the Copyright Act protects only expressive works. If the answer is yes, the second prong asks whether the dance sequence meets the creative threshold for copyright protection. 

The court determined Anderson’s routines are not expressive works protectable under the Copyright Act and dismissed the claim without deciding whether the underlying dance routines are protectable “choreography.” The court reasoned that exercise – no matter how much time and effort goes into the development of an exercise program – is not a category of authorship protected by the Copyright Act. Exercises are processes for achieving improved physical fitness. The Tracy Anderson Method is, by name, a method; it was created after “years of scientific research, testing, and development”; its stated purpose is health and fitness, not art or expression. Moreover, even if the Tracy Anderson Method included some choreographic elements, since the Tracy Anderson Method is a method, process, or system, it is not copyrightable. See Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032, 1044 (9th Cir. 2015) (yoga pose sequences are ineligible for protection under copyright even if they “could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography”).

Does this mean that all exercise routines with choreography are not protectable under copyright law? Not necessarily. The court left open the possibility that the choreo taught in dance-based group classes may be copyrightable, even if the class offers incidental fitness and health benefits. But, to warrant protection, the routines must constitute artistic expression instead of being part of a system or method of improving the health and fitness of its dancers. 

Note: the court allowed Anderson’s breach of contract claim to go to trial. Unless the parties settle, Anderson will have to prove at trial that by contacting Anderson’s clients, Roup disclosed confidential information in violation of her employment agreement. So the saga continues.

Tracy Anderson Mind & Body, LLC et al. vs. Megan Roup et al., 22-cv-04735-PSG-E (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2024)