FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA,

L.P., a California limited

partnership; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY,

an Individual,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

EVOLATION YOGA, LLC, a New

York limited liability company;

MARK DROST, an Individual; ZEFEA

SAMSON, an Individual,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-55763

D.C. No.

2:11-cv-05506-

ODW-SS

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Otis D. Wright II, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

May 8, 2015—Pasadena, California

Filed October 8, 2015

Before: John T. Noonan, Kim McLane Wardlaw,

and Mary H. Murguia, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Wardlaw
2 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

SUMMARY*

Copyright

Affirming the district court’s grant of partial summary

judgment, the panel held that a sequence of yoga poses and

breathing exercises was not entitled to copyright protection.

The panel held that under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b), the

“Sequence,” developed by Bikram Choudhury and described

in his 1979 book, Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, was not a

proper subject of copyright protection because it was an idea,

process, or system designed to improve health, rather than an

expression of an idea. Because the Sequence was an

unprotectible idea, it was also ineligible for copyright

protection as a compilation or choreographic work.

COUNSEL

Ivana Cingel (argued), Carla Christofferson and Daniel

Petrocelli, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles,

California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Eric R. Maier (argued) and Louis Shoch, Maier Shoch LLP,

Hermosa Beach, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kevin M. Fong and Cydney A. Tune, Pillsbury Winthrop

Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus

Curiae Yoga Alliance.

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 3

OPINION

WARDLAW, Circuit Judge:

We must decide whether a sequence of twenty-six yoga

poses and two breathing exercises developed by Bikram

Choudhury and described in his 1979 book, Bikram’s

Beginning Yoga Class, is entitled to copyright protection. 

This question implicates a fundamental principle underlying

constitutional and statutory copyright protection—the

idea/expression dichotomy. Because copyright protection is

limited to the expression of ideas, and does not extend to the

ideas themselves, the Bikram Yoga Sequence is not a proper

subject of copyright protection.

I. Factual and Procedural History

The Indian practice and philosophy of yoga date back

thousands of years. See Linda Sparrowe, Yoga 9 (2002). 

Derived from ancient Hindu scriptures, including the

Bhagavad Gita, the practice of yoga teaches students to attain

spiritual fulfillment through control of the mind and body. 

See Stefanie Syman, The Subtle Body: The Story of Yoga in

America 4 (2010). Yoga has evolved into a diverse set of

spiritual, philosophical, and physical disciplines. Some

students practice yoga to transcend the physical body and

unite with divine powers; others focus on improving strength,

flexibility, and overall physical fitness.

The history of yoga in the United States reflects its wideranging appeal. Some of yoga’s first American adherents

included nineteenth-centurytranscendentalists, such as Henry

David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson, who were

fascinated by yoga’s approach to achieving enlightenment. 
4 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

In the early twentieth century, yoga grew more popular as

scientists and physicians began to study the physical benefits

of the practice. These physical benefits caught the attention

of Hollywood celebrities, including Gloria Swanson, Greta

Garbo, and Marilyn Monroe, who embraced yoga as a tool to

fight illness and aging. See Pankaj Mishra, Posing as Fitness,

N.Y. Times, July 23, 2010.1 By the 1960s, Americans

increasingly turned to yoga as a “non-religious, decidedly

unspiritual” form of physical exercise. Sparrowe, supra, at

50.

In 1971, Bikram Choudhury, the “self-proclaimed ‘Yogi

to the stars,’” id. at 56, arrived in Beverly Hills, California. 

He soon became a central figure in the growing popularity of

yoga in the United States. Born and raised in Calcutta, India,

Choudhury began studying yoga at age four and learned

hundreds of traditional Hatha yoga “asanas,” or individual

poses. Hatha yoga places particular emphasis on the physical

components of yoga. Choudhury developed a sequence of

twenty-six asanas and two breathing exercises, arranged in a

particular order, which he calls the “Sequence.” See Bikram

Choudhury, Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class (1979). 

Choudhury opened his own studio, where he began offering

“Bikram Yoga” classes. In a Bikram Yoga class, the

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.

Choudhury popularized the Sequence by marketing the

many health and fitness benefits it provides. Choudhury

1 This article may be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/

books/review/Mishra-t.html.
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 5

informs prospective students that his “system of Hatha Yoga

is capable of helping you avoid, correct, cure, heal, or at least

alleviate the symptoms of almost any illness or injury.” He

claims that he developed the Sequence after “many of years

of research and verification . . . using modern medical

measurement techniques.” He tells reporters that he extended

the careers of professional athletes, including Kareem AbdulJabbar and John McEnroe. This message has resonated with

an American audience: as the complaint in this action

explains, “[p]ublic demand for Bikram Yoga classes grew

steadily once Bikram Yoga participants realized that

Bikram’s unique yoga style and method offered them

tremendous physical, mental and other benefits.”

In 1979, Choudhury published the book Bikram’s

Beginning Yoga Class, which includes descriptions,

photographs, and drawings of the Sequence’s twenty-six

poses and two breathing exercises. Choudhury registered the

book with the U.S. Copyright Office in 1979. In 2002, he

also registered the “compilation of exercises” contained in the

book, using a supplementaryregistration form that referenced

back to the 1979 book.2

In 1994, Choudhury introduced the “Bikram Yoga

Teacher Training Course.” In 2002 and 2005, respectively,

Mark Drost and Zefea Samson enrolled in and successfully

completed the three-month Bikram Yoga Teacher Training

2 Choudhury has registered several other works with the Copyright

Office, including Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class (2d ed.) (2000),

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class (sound cassette) (2002), Bikram’s Yoga

College of India Beginning Yoga Dialogue (2002), Bikram’s Yoga

College of India: Yoga Teacher Training Course: Curriculum Outline

(2002), Yoga for Pregnancy (2002), Bikram’s Advanced Yoga Class

(2006), and Bikram’s Yoga (2007).
6 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

course. In 2009, Drost and Samson founded Evolation Yoga,

LLC. Evolation Yoga offers several types and styles of yoga,

including “hot yoga,” which is similar to “Bikram’s Basic

Yoga System.” Evolation acknowledges that hot yoga

“includes 26 postures and two breathing exercises and is done

for 90 minutes, accompanied by a series of oral instructions,

in a room heated to approximately 105 degrees Fahrenheit.”

On July 1, 2011, Choudhury and Bikram’s Yoga College

of India, L.P. (“Choudhury”)

3

filed a complaint in the Central

District of California alleging, inter alia, that defendants

Evolation Yoga, LLC, Mark Drost, and Zefea Samson

(“Evolation”) infringed “Bikram’s Copyrighted Works

through substantial use of Bikram’s Copyrighted Works in

and as part of Defendants’ offering of yoga classes.” On

November 12, 2012, Evolation moved for partial summary

judgment as to Choudhury’s claim of copyright infringement

of the “Sequence.” The district court granted Evolation’s

motion, ruling that the “Sequence is a collection of facts and

ideas” that is not entitled to copyright protection. The parties

settled all remaining claims against each other, and

Choudhury timely appealed as to the “Sequence.”

II. Standard of Review

“We review de novo a district court’s grant of partial

summary judgment, and may affirm on any ground supported

by the record.” White v. City of Sparks, 500 F.3d 953, 955

(9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). “After ‘viewing the

3 For the purposes of this appeal, it is not necessary to distinguish

between Bikram Choudhury, the individual, and Bikram’s Yoga College

of India, LP. Accordingly, we refer to all Plaintiffs-Appellants as

Choudhury.
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 7

evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,’

we determine ‘whether there are any genuine issues of

material fact and whether the district court correctly applied

the relevant substantive law.’” Id. (quoting Am. Civil

Liberties Union of Nev. v. City of Las Vegas, 333 F.3d 1092,

1097 (9th Cir. 2003)).

III. Discussion

Though Choudhury emphasizes the aesthetic attributes of

the Sequence’s “graceful flow,” at bottom, the Sequence is an

idea, process, or system designed to improve health. 

Copyright protects only the expression of this idea—the

words and pictures used to describe the Sequence—and not

the idea of the Sequence itself. Because the Sequence is an

unprotectible idea, it is also ineligible for copyright protection

as a “compilation” or “choreographic work.” The district

court properly granted partial summary judgment in favor of

Evolation because the Sequence is not a proper subject of

copyright.

A. The Sequence Is an Unprotectible Idea.

Section 102(a) of the Copyright Act of 1976 sets forth the

proper subjects of copyright protection. 17 U.S.C. § 102(a). 

Section 102(b) expressly excludes protection for “any idea,

procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept,

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

described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.” 

Id. § 102(b). Section 102(b) codifies the “idea/expression

dichotomy,” under which “every idea, theory, and fact in a

copyrighted work becomes instantly available for public

exploitation at the moment of publication.” Golan v. Holder,

132 S. Ct. 873, 890 (2012) (quoting Eldred v. Ashcroft,
8 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

537 U.S. 186, 219 (2003)); see also Frybarger v. Int’l Bus.

Machs. Corp., 812 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1987) (explaining

that Section 102(b) “expressly codified” this principle); H.R.

Rep. No. 94–1476, at 57 (1976) (explaining that the “purpose

[of Section 102(b)] is to restate . . . that the basic dichotomy

between expression and idea remains unchanged”).

The idea/expression dichotomy has two constitutional

foundations: the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment. 

Under the Copyright Clause, “[t]he primary objective of

copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but ‘[t]o

promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.’” Feist

Publ’ns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 349

(1991) (quoting U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8). Thus, “[t]he

‘constitutional command’ . . . is that Congress, to the extent

it enacts copyright laws at all, create a ‘system’ that

‘promote[s] the Progress of Science.’” Eldred, 537 U.S. at

212 (quoting Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,

383 U.S. 1, 6 (1966)). “To this end, copyright assures authors

the right to their original expression, but encourages others to

build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a

work.” Feist, 499 U.S. at 349–50. At the same time, the

idea/expression dichotomy “strike[s] a definitional balance

between the First Amendment and the Copyright Act by

permitting free communication of facts while still protecting

an author’s expression.” Harper &Row Publishers v. Nation

Enters., 471 U.S. 539, 556 (1985); see also Eldred, 537 U.S.

at 219 (describing the idea/expression dichotomy as a “builtin First Amendment accommodation[]”); L.A. News Serv. v.

Tullo, 973 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Copyright law

incorporates First Amendment goals by ensuring that

copyright protection extends only to the forms in which ideas

and information are expressed and not to the ideas and

information themselves.”); 5 Melville B. Nimmer & David
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 9

Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright § 19E.04[B] (2015) (“[F]ree

access to ideas is vital not only for copyright law but also for

the maintenance of the democratic dialogue . . . .”).

In Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1879), the Supreme

Court addressed the protection copyright law provided to a

book, a classic subject of copyright protection, explaining a

system of book-keeping. Id. at 99–100. The Court held that

the book’s expression of the book-keeping system was

protected, but the system of book-keeping itself was not

entitled to copyright protection. Id. at 102. The Court

explained:

The description of the art in a book, though

entitled to the benefit of copyright, lays no

foundation for an exclusive claim to the art

itself. The object of the one is explanation;

the object of the other is use. The former may

be secured by copyright. The latter can only

be secured, if it can be secured at all, by

letters-patent.

Id. at 105.

Following Baker, and recognizing this vital distinction

between ideas and expression, courts have routinely held that

the copyright for a work describing how to perform a process

does not extend to the process itself. In Palmer v. Braun,

287 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2002), for example, the Eleventh

Circuit held that meditation exercises described in a

copyrighted manual on exploring the consciousness were “a

process” unentitled to copyright protection. Id. at 1334. The

court explained that the “exercises, while undoubtedly the

product of much time and effort, are, at bottom, simply a
10 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

process for achieving increased consciousness. Such

processes, even if original, cannot be protected by

copyright.”4Id. Similarly, in Publications International, Ltd.

v. Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996), the Seventh

Circuit held that recipes contained in a copyrighted cookbook

are not entitled to copyright protection, for they merely

“describe a procedure by which the reader may produce many

dishes,” and “there can be no monopoly in the copyright

sense in the ideas for producing certain foodstuffs.” Id. at

481. Finally, in Seltzer v. Sunbrock, 22 F. Supp. 621 (S.D.

Cal. 1938), which predates the Copyright Act of 1976 but

applies Baker, the court held that the copyright in a manual

describing how to organize roller-skating races does not

extend to the rules for the races themselves. Id. at 630. The

court explained, “[w]hat [the author] really composed was a

description of a system for conducting races on roller skates. 

A system, as such, can never be copyrighted. If it finds any

protection, it must come from the patent laws.” Id. (citing

Baker, 101 U.S. 99).

Here, we must similarly determine not the validity of a

copyright but rather its scope.5 Does Choudhury’s copyright

4 Cf. Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer, 970 F.2d 1067, 1075 (2d Cir. 1992)

(holding that the owner of copyrights in training materials describing

ancient Sufi methods to “better understand oneself and one’s interactions

with others” was judicially estopped from claiming copyright protection

for the program techniques, in light of representations in commercial

publications that the techniques were “based upon . . . proven scientific

knowledge” and “provable in the laboratory and clinically”).

5 As noted above, Choudhury obtained a copyright for a “compilation of

exercises” through his 2002 supplementary registration to Bikram’s

Beginning Yoga Class, which was first published in 1979. Choudhury

claims that the 2002 supplementary registration relates back to the 1979

registration. In Choudhury’s view, the supplementary registration thus
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 11

protection for his 1979 book extend to the Sequence itself?

Under the fundamental tenets of copyright law and consistent

with the precedents discussed above, the answer is no.

As Choudhury describes it, the Sequence is a “system” or

a “method” designed to “systematically work every part of

the body, to give all internal organs, all the veins, all the

ligaments, and all the muscles everything they need to

maintain optimum health and maximum function.” In

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, Choudhury explains that he

“arrived at the sequence of postures” after “[researching] the

diseases and the postures and after many years of research

and verification . . . using modern medical measurement

techniques.” The book tells readers that “Bikram’s

twenty-six exercises systematically move fresh, oxygenated

blood to one hundred percent of your body, to each organ and

fiber, restoring all systems to healthy working order, just as

Nature intended. ” Bonnie Jones Reynolds, Introduction to

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, at xi (1979). This text

promises readers that Choudhury’s “system of Hatha Yoga is

capable of helping you avoid, correct, cure, heal, or at least

alleviate the symptoms of almost any illness or injury.”

Also illuminating isChoudhury’sspoken Dialogue, which

accompanies the Sequence. Before the Sequence’s first

breathing exercise, for example, the instructor tells students,

“[The exercise] is good for the lungs and respiratory system. 

issued within five years of first publication and therefore serves as “prima

facie evidence of the validity of the copyright.” 17 U.S.C. § 410(c). Here,

however, we need not decide whether Choudhury’s supplementary

registration is prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright, for

even if it were, the undisputed facts are sufficient to overcome any

presumption of validity.
12 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

This exercise expands your lungs to their maximum

expansion capacity. And it improves the elasticity of your

lungs.” Before the twelfth pose, the instructor explains:

Every exercise in the world you do, you burn

energy/calories like driving a car burns gas. 

The tank is empty, you need to fill it up again. 

Hatha Yoga class is a gas station, it is the only

place in the world where you gain energy

instead of burning energy. Asana is the only

natural physical activity in the world because

it is scientific [and] with the help of science,

we can explain nature.

An essential element of this “system” is the order in

which the yoga poses and breathing exercises are arranged. 

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class instructs readers, “Do the

poses in the strict order given in this book. Nothing about

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class is haphazard. It is designed

to scientifically warm and stretch muscles, ligaments, and

tendons in the order in which they should be stretched.” 

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, supra, at xi. For instance,

Choudhury explains, “Camel Pose (Ustrasana) stretches the

abdomen and compresses the spine; so for the next posture,

I chose the Rabbit Pose (Sasangasana), which does the

converse: stretches the back and compresses the abdomen.”6

One Yoga Journal article explains that “[a]ccording to

6 A recent research study published in the Journal of Strength and

Conditioning Research further explains the clinical effects of the

Sequence’s composition: “The combination of rapid transition between

postures and environmental heat stress produces a substantial

cardiovascular response and muscle fatigue.” Brian L. Tracy & CadyE.F.

Hart, Bikram Yoga Training and Physical Fitness in Healthy Young

Adults, 27 J. Strength & Conditioning Res. 822, 823 (2013).
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 13

Bikram, each posture in his series forms the perfect basis for

the next, warming and stretching the appropriate muscles,

ligaments and tendons.” Loraine Despres, Yoga’s Bad Boy:

Bikram Choudhury, Yoga J., Aug. 28, 2007.7

Choudhury thus attempts to secure copyright protection

for a healing art: a system designed to yield physical benefits

and a sense of well-being. Simply put, this attempt is

precluded bycopyright’s idea/expression dichotomy, codified

by Section 102(b). As the Supreme Court explained in Baker,

“Certain mixtures are found to be of great value in the healing

art. If the discoverer writes and publishes a book on the

subject (as regular physicians generally do), he gains no

exclusive right to the manufacture and sale of the medicine;

he gives that to the public.” 101 U.S. at 102–03. Thus, for

example, the copyright for a book describing how to perform

a complicated surgery does not give the holder the exclusive

right to perform the surgery. Like the series of movements a

surgeon makes, the Sequence is, as Choudhury tells readers,

a method designed to “cure, heal, or at least alleviate”

physical injuries and illness. Monopoly protection for such

a method “can only be secured, if it can be secured at all, by

letters-patent.” Id. at 105; see also Sega Enters. Ltd. v.

Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510, 1526 (9th Cir. 1992), as

amended (Jan. 6, 1993) (“In order to enjoy a lawful monopoly

over the idea or functional principle underlying a work, the

creator of the work must satisfy the more stringent standards

imposed by the patent laws.”). In light of Baker and its

progeny, Choudhury’s healingmethodologyis not eligible for

protection by copyright. Indeed, if it is entitled to protection

7 This article may be located at http://www.yogajournal.com/

article/lifestyle/yoga-s-bad-boy-bikram-choudhury/.
14 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

at all, that protection is more properly sought through the

patent process.8

That the Sequence may produce spiritual and

psychological benefits makes it no less an idea, system, or

process and no more amenable to copyright protection. 

Choudhury’s personal declaration explains that the Sequence

offers “spiritual benefits” to his students and “lead[s] to a

general sense of peace and well-being that is undoubtedly of

benefit to all of us.” Like the meditation exercises designed

to achieve greater consciousness in Braun, 287 F.3d at 1334,

the Sequence sets forth a method to attain identifiable, if

spiritual and psychological, results: a “sense of well-being”

and “boundless energy.” Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class,

supra, at xi.9 As such, it falls within the Copyright Act’s

definition of an idea, process, or system excluded from

copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Choudhury contends that the Sequence’s arrangement of

postures is “particularly beautiful and graceful.” But beauty

is not a basis for copyright protection. The performance of

many ideas, systems, or processes may be beautiful: a

surgeon’s intricate movements, a book-keeper’s careful

notations, or a baker’s kneading might each possess a certain

grace for at least some viewers. Indeed, from Vermeer’s

 

8

 We do not opine on whether the Sequence is, in fact, patentable.

9 Choudhury’s website features research, including a report presented at

the Anxiety and Depression Association of America Conference, which

concludes that Bikram Yoga may reduce stress, anxiety, and depression

among women at risk for mental health problems. See Fran Lowry, Hot

Yoga Cools Anxiety, Relieves Depression, Medscape (Apr. 13, 2015),

reproduced at Research, Bikram Yoga, http://www.bikramyoga.com/

BikramYoga/Research.php (last visited Sept. 16, 2015).
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 15

milkmaid to Lewis Hine’s power house mechanic, the

individual engrossed in a process has long attracted artistic

attention. But the beauty of the process does not permit one

who describes it to gain, through copyright, the monopolistic

power to exclude all others from practicing it. This is true

even where, as here, the process was conceived with at least

some aesthetic considerations in mind. Just as some steps in

a recipe may reflect no more than the author’s belief that a

particular ingredient is beautiful or that a particular cooking

technique is impressive to watch and empowering to practice,

some elements in Choudhury’s Sequence may reflect his

aesthetic preferences. Yet just like the recipe, the Sequence

remains unprotectible as a process the design of which

primarily reflects function, not expression.

In drawing the “difficult” line between idea and

expression in this case, we are mindful of the “guiding

consideration” of the idea/expression dichotomy: “the

preservation of the balance between competition and

protection reflected in the patent and copyright laws.” CDN

Inc. v. Kapes, 197 F.3d 1256, 1262 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting

Herbert Rosenthal Jewelry Corp. v. Kalpakian, 446 F.2d 738,

742 (9th Cir. 1971)). As in Baker, the “object” of the book

Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class is “explanation”: it tells

readers how to perform the Sequence and encourages them to

try it. Baker, 101 U.S. at 105. The introduction to Bikram’s

Beginning Yoga Class, for example, urges the audience to:

(i) “turn to the Contents page,” (ii) “read through the book,”

(iii) “build gradually,” and (iv) “do the poses in the strict

order given in this book.” Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class,

supra, at ix–xi. Like a book explaining “Book-keeping

Simplified,” 101 U.S. at 100, Bikram’s Beginning YogaClass

sets out to “communicate to the world the useful knowledge

which it contains.” Id. at 103. It invites readers to practice
16 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

the method it describes. “But this object would be frustrated

if the knowledge could not be used without incurring the guilt

of piracy of the book.” Id. Consumers would have little

reason to buy Choudhury’s book if Choudhury held a

monopoly on the practice of the very activity he sought to

popularize. Rather than “stimulat[ing] artistic creativity for

the general public good,” copyright protection for the

Sequence would prevent the public from engaging with

Choudhury’s idea and building upon it. Mattel, Inc. v. MGA

Entm’t, Inc., 705 F.3d 1108, 1111 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting

Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156

(1975)).

B. The Sequence Is Not a Copyrightable Compilation.

Choudhury contends that the Sequence is entitled to

copyright protection as a “compilation.” Specifically,

Choudhury claims that the Sequence qualifies for copyright

protection because his “selection, coordination, and

arrangement” of twenty-six poses and two breathing exercises

create a coherent and expressive composition. The district

court correctly rejected this argument.

The Copyright Act identifies compilations as a proper

subject of copyright. Section 103 of the Copyright Act

provides that “[t]he subject matter of copyright as specified

in section 102 includes compilations.” 17 U.S.C. § 103(a). 

A “compilation” is “a work formed by the collection and

assembling of preexisting materials or of data that are

selected, coordinated, or arranged in such a way that the

resulting work as a whole constitutes an original work of

authorship.” Id. § 101. It essential to recognize, however,

that Section 103 complements Section 102. Thus, while a

compilation may be eligible for copyright protection, it must
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 17

nevertheless satisfy the requirements of Section 102. A

compilation must, in other words, represent an “original

work[] of authorship,” and “[i]n no case” may copyright

protection “extend to any idea, procedure, process, [or]

system.” Id. § 102. The availability of copyright protection

for compilations, therefore, does not eliminate Section 102’s

categorical bar on copyright protection for ideas.

The Supreme Court addressed the relationship between

these “twowell-established propositions” ̄that compilations

are eligible for copyright but facts and ideas are not ̄in

Feist, 499 U.S. 340. In Feist, the Court considered whether

the collection of names, towns, and telephone numbers in a

telephone directory is eligible for copyright protection as a

compilation. The Court held that “[a] factual compilation is

eligible for copyright if it features an original selection or

arrangement of facts, but the copyright is limited to the

particular selection or arrangement. In no event may

copyright extend to the facts themselves.” Id. at 350–51.

By claiming copyright protection for the Sequence as a

compilation, Choudhurymisconstrues the scope of copyright

protection for compilations. As we have explained, the

Sequence is an idea, process, or system; therefore, it is not

eligible for copyright protection. That the Sequence may

possess many constituent parts does not transform it into a

proper subject of copyright protection. Virtually any process

or system could be dissected in a similar fashion. Baker’s

examples of “how-to” treatises are instructive: “A treatise on

. . . the construction and use of ploughs, or watches, or

churns[,] . . . or on the mode of drawing lines to produce the

effect of perspective” would likely list the steps necessary to

perform the process it describes. 101 U.S. at 102. The

watchmaking treatise’s author could not claim a copyright in
18 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

the process of making a watch, however, by breaking down

the process into multiple steps and labeling it a

“compilation.” Recipes further illustrate the point: a cake

recipe could be viewed as a “compilation” of carefully

arranged and selected steps ̄which may, of course, reflect

the personal preferences and tastes of the recipe’s author ̄yet

the recipe would remain, in most instances, a process that is

not eligible for copyright protection. See Meredith, 88 F.3d

at 480–81. Likewise, Choudhury cannot obtain copyright

protection for the Sequence as a compilation by separately

identifying the poses and breathing exercises it contains.

Moreover, according to Choudhury himself, the medical

and functional considerations at the heart of the Sequence

compel the very selection and arrangement of poses and

breathing exercises for which he claims copyright protection. 

According to Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class, the “strict

order” of the poses “is designed to scientifically warm and

stretch muscles, ligaments, and tendons in the order in which

they should be stretched.” Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class,

supra, at xi. Read in the light most favorable to Choudhury,

the record demonstrates that the overarching reason for the

organization of the poses and breathing exercises in the

Sequence is to further the basic goals of the method: to attain

“[p]roper weight, muscle tone, glowing complexion,

boundless energy, vibrant good health, and a sense of

well-being.” Id. The Sequence’s composition renders it

more effective as a process or system, but not any more

suitable for copyright protection as an original work of

authorship.

It makes no difference that similar results could be

achieved through a different organization of yoga poses and

breathing exercises. Choudhury argues that he could have
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 19

chosen from “hundreds of postures” and “countless

arrangements of these postures” in developing the Sequence. 

But the possibility of attaining a particular end through

multiple different methods does not render the

uncopyrightable a proper subject of copyright. See BellSouth

Advert. & Publ’g Corp. v. Donnelley Info. Publ’g, Inc.,

999 F.2d 1436, 1443 (11th Cir. 1993) (“The relevant inquiry

[under Feist] is not whether there is some imaginable,

although manifestlyless useful, method of arranging business

telephone listings.”); see also ATC Distrib. Grp., Inc. v.

Whatever It Takes Transmissions &Parts, Inc., 402 F.3d 700,

711–12 (6th Cir. 2005) (“To be sure, [the publisher of a

catalog describing a transmission parts numbering system]

could have arranged the parts information in other ways that

were potentially less clear or useful, but this fact alone is

insufficient to demonstrate the creativity necessary for

copyright protection.”). Though it may be one of many

possible yoga sequences capable of attaining similar results,

the Sequence is nevertheless a process and is therefore

ineligible for copyright protection.10

10 Choudhury argues that the district court granted undue deference to

a recent Copyright Office Policy Statement concerning copyright

protection for yoga sequences as compilations. SeeRegistration ofClaims

to Copyright, 77 Fed. Reg. 37605 (June 22, 2012). In this Statement, the

Copyright Office explains that

a claim in a compilation of exercises or the selection

and arrangement of yoga poses will be refused

registration. . . . The Copyright Office would entertain

a claimin the selection, coordination or arrangement of,

for instance, photographs or drawings of exercises, but

such compilation authorship would not extend to the

selection, coordination or arrangement of the exercises

themselves that are depicted in the photographs or

drawings.
20 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

C. The Sequence Is Not a Copyrightable Choreographic

Work.

The district court properly rejected Choudhury’s

argument that the Sequence is entitled to copyright protection

as a choreographic work.11 The 1976 Copyright Act extended

protection to “pantomimes and choreographic works,” which

were previously not copyrightable. Pub. L. No. 94–553,

90 Stat. 2541, 2545 (codified at 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)(4)). In

1986, the Second Circuit observed that “[e]xplicit federal

copyright protection for choreography is a fairly recent

development, and the scope of that protection is an uncharted

area of the law.” Horgan v. Macmillan, Inc., 789 F.2d 157,

160 (2d Cir. 1986). This remains true today.

The parties debate the meaning of the term

“choreography,” which we have not yet defined in the

copyright context. Nor did Congress define the term

Id. at 37607. We need not decide whether the district court improperly

deferred to the Copyright Office, however, for we “may affirm on any

ground supported by the record.” White, 500 F.3d at 955 (citation

omitted). The undisputed evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to

Choudhury, precludes copyright protection for the Sequence.

11 Though not dispositive, we note that Choudhury did not register the

Sequence as a choreographic work. Choudhury’s Certificate of

Registration for Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class is for “a nondramatic

literary work.” When Choudhury tried to obtain a Certificate of

Registration for the Sequence as a “work of performing arts,” the

Copyright Office denied his application. The Copyright Office stated that

the “concept or idea for a particular manner or style of exercise is not

registrable.” Choudhury’s subsequent supplementary registration for a

“compilation of exercises” is an extension of the original registration for

“a nondramatic literary work,” and thus is itself a literary work

registration.
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 21

“choreographic work[],” apparently because its meaning was

“fairly settled.” H.R. Rep. No. 94–1476, at 53 (1976). The

legislative history does explain, however, that it is not

“necessary to specify that ‘choreographic works’ do not

include social dance steps and simple routines.” Id. at 53–54. 

The Second Circuit has relied on the Compendium of

Copyright Office Practices as persuasive authority and

concluded that “[c]horeography represents a related series of

dance movements and patterns organized into a coherent

whole.” Horgan, 789 F.2d at 161 (quoting U.S. Copyright

Office, Compendium II: Compendium of Copyright Office

Practices § 450.03(a) (1984)). The Compendium II defines

“dance” as “static and kinetic successions of bodily

movement in certain rhythmic and spatial relationships.” 

Compendium II, § 450.01.

12 The “dance movements,”

according to the Compendium II, “must be more than mere

exercises, such as ‘jumping jacks’ or walking steps.” Id.

§ 450.03(a). Finally, the Compendium II explains that

choreography is “usually intended to be accompanied by

music” but “need not tell a story” and need not be presented

“before an audience.” Id. §§ 450.01–450.02.

In this case, we need not decide whether to adopt the

Copyright Office’s definition of “choreographic work” or

fashion another on our own because all categories of works

eligible for copyright protection, including choreographic

works, are subject to the critical requirements and limitations

of Section 102. The beauty of this section is that it allows for

12 This interpretation is consistent with dictionary definitions. Webster’s

defines “choreography” as “the art ofsymbolically representing dancing.” 

Webster’s Ninth NewCollegiate Dictionary 237 (9th ed. 1987). “Dance,”

in turn, is defined as “a series of rhythmic and patterned bodily

movements usually performed to music.” Id. at 324.
22 BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA

the possibility that the term “original work of authorship”

may, as it has, evolve and encompass new forms of

expression that, like choreography, are not easily reduced to

neat definitions. “Congress recurrently adjusts copyright law

to protect categories of works once outside the law’s

compass.” Golan, 132 S. Ct. at 892 (listing such categories,

including foreign works, dramatic works, photographs,

motion pictures, fixed sound recordings, and architectural

works). Yet as Congress has responded to new technologies

and evolving understandings of creative expression, the

idea/expression dichotomy has remained firmly in place. 

This dichotomy, as this case illustrates, polices the uncertain

boundaries of copyrightable subject matter.

The Sequence is not copyrightable as a choreographic

work for the same reason that it is not copyrightable as a

compilation: it is an idea, process, or system to which

copyright protection may “[i]n no case” extend. 17 U.S.C.

§ 102(b). We recognize that the Sequence may involve

“static and kinetic successions of bodily movement in certain

rhythmic and spatial relationships.” Compendium II,

§ 450.01. So too would a method to churn butter or drill for

oil. That is no accident: “successions of bodily movement”

often serve basic functional purposes. Such movements do

not become copyrightable as “choreographic works” when

they are part and parcel of a process. Even if the Sequence

could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or

choreography, it remains a process ineligible for copyright

protection.

The idea/expression dichotomy, codified in Section

102(b), plays a similar role in defining the scope of protection

for a “choreographic work” as it does for compilations. See

Feist, 499 U.S. at 350–51. In the context of choreographic
BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE V. EVOLATION YOGA 23

works, that role is essential. Our day-to-day lives consist of

many routinized physical movements, from brushing one’s

teeth to pushing a lawnmower to shaking a Polaroid picture,

that could be (and, in two of the preceding examples, have

been13) characterized as forms of dance. Without a proper

understanding of the idea/expression dichotomy, one might

obtain monopoly rights over these functional physical

sequences by describing them in a tangible medium of

expression and labeling them choreographic works. The

idea/expression dichotomy thus ensures that expansive

interpretations of the categories enumerated as proper

subjects of copyright will, “[i]n no case,” extend copyright

protection beyond its constitutional limits. 17 U.S.C.

§ 102(b).

IV. Conclusion

Although there is no cause to dispute the many health,

fitness, spiritual, and aesthetic benefits of yoga, and Bikram

Yoga in particular, they do not bring the Sequence into the

realm of copyright protection. The Sequence falls squarely

within Section 102(b)’s exclusionsfromcopyright protection,

no matter how it is labeled or how ably the label is argued. 

Therefore, the district court properly granted Evolation’s

motion for partial summary judgment.

AFFIRMED.

13

See How To Do the ‘Lawn Mower’ (Dance), WikiHow,

http://www.wikihow.com/Do-the-%22Lawn-Mower%22-(Dance) (last

visited Sept. 16, 2015); Shake It Like a Polaroid Picture, Urban

Dictionary, http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=

shake+it+like+a+Polaroid+picture (last visited Sept. 16, 2015).