A federal court in California has handed Megan Roup a partial win in the latest round of a copyright-centric lawsuit being waged against her by rival fitness guru Tracy Anderson. In a recently-issued order, Judge Philip Gutierrez of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Roup’s motion for summary judgment on Anderson’s copyright infringement claim, finding that Anderson’s exercise routines amount to a “process, system, and/or methodology” that is “clearly” not protectable by copyright law. The court also sided with Anderson to an extent, allowing the breach of contract claim she filed against Roup to move forward.
Focusing first to Tracy Anderson’s copyright infringement claim, Judge Gutierrez stated in his June 12 order that Anderson asserts that Roup and her competing choreography-based dance cardio workout studio, The Sculpt Society, (collectively, “Roup”) have infringed the copyrights that she has in her “TA Works” DVDs, protection that she has argued extend to the Tracy Anderson Method (“TA Method”) routines, which are captured in the footage of the DVDs.
No Copyright for the TA Method
Roup does not dispute the similarity between the TA Method and TSS exercise routines but instead, argues that Anderson cannot prove her copyright claim primarily because the underlying exercises in the TA Works DVDs “are noncopyrightable” under Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, and the exercises are not protectable choreography. Anderson argued in response that the routines are protectable choreography under Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc., even if they also double as exercise – thereby, leaving the court to first consider whether Anderson’s choreographed exercises are copyrightable under Bikram and Hanagami.
> In the Bikram case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the copyright protections that Bikram Choudhury holds for a book that depicts a series of yoga poses that he developed does not extend to protect the “Sequence” of poses, itself, because the Sequence is “a system designed to yield physical benefits and a sense of well-being,” and a “healing methodology is not eligible for protection by copyright.”
> In the Hanagami case, the Ninth Circuit held that it “did not need to decide ‘whether to adopt the Copyright Office’s definition of choreographic work or fashion another on our own’ [in the Bikram case] because ‘even if the Sequence could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography, it would remain a process ineligible for copyright protection.’”
According to Judge Gutierrez, Hanagami and Bikram set up a two-step analysis under which a plaintiff must: (1) establish that the work is a copyrightable expression (as opposed to an idea, process, or system to which copyright protection may “[i]n no case” extend), and then (2) if the work is copyrightable, show that the dance rises to the level of protectable “choreography” under the Copyright Act.
Against that background, the court found that Anderson’s routines are “clearly an unprotectable process, system, and/or methodology.” One need not look further than the name of Anderson’s routines, which “are explicitly called a ‘method’ – the TA Method – and a ‘protocol,’” the court stated, noting that “methods are explicitly precluded from protection under s. 102 [of the Copyright Act].” The court also asserted that based on language from Anderson, the TA Method was “the result of years of scientific research, testing, and development,” and in fact, the TA Method “is marketed as a ‘researched and result-proven fitness methodology’ and ‘fitness program designed for strategic muscle design.’”
Taken together, these undisputed facts “prove that the TA Method is in fact a method or system that was designed for the purpose of improving client’s fitness and health,” per Judge Gutierrez, and as a result, “no reasonable juror could find that the TA Method is not a method, process, or system unprotected by § 102.”
The court ended its copyright-centric analysis there, stating that “because the TA Method is uncopyrightable, the court need not reach the issues of whether the TA Method could be considered choreography” and thus, granted Roup’s motion for summary judgment as to Anderson’s copyright claim.
Breach of Contract?
Turning to Anderson’s claim that Roup breached her trainer agreement with Anderson’s company by “disclosing confidential information related to customers, operations, program structure, customer intake methods, and employees to third parties, including employees, affiliates, and/or customers of TSS,” the court refused to decide the matter on summary judgment. Because the evidence regarding client information is “sufficient to create a dispute of fact as to whether Roup violated the ‘Confidential Information’ covenant of her Trainer Agreement,” Judge Gutierrez said that he need not evaluate the other categories of information that were allegedly taken by Roup (namely, TA Method training manuals and the process for conveying choreography) at this time.
Additionally, the court held that Roup’s affirmative defense – that the “Confidential Information” covenant violates California’s Business and Professions Code § 16600 because Anderson is enforcing it in an oppressive manner – cannot be summarily adjudicated for the same reasons.”
As such, both issues will move ahead and be decided at trial.
Tracy Anderson made headlines in July 2022 when she filed the lawsuit at hand against former TA Method trainer Roup for allegedly copying her cult-followed method and breaching the employment agreement she entered into with Tracy Anderson – which bars trainers from using or disclosing confidential information, including Anderson’s “proprietary choreography movements,” even after leaving the company – when she launched her own rival fitness program.
With the foregoing in mind, Anderson waged copyright infringement, breach of contract, violation of the Lanham Act, and unfair competition claims against Roup. The Court dismissed Anderson’s Lanham Act and unfair competition claims back in June 2023, leaving only the copyright infringement and breach of contract claims, as well as one of Roup’s affirmative defenses (in which she asserts that the Trainer Agreement’s “Confidential Information” covenant is unenforceable for violating California Business & Professions Code), on the table.
The case is Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC, et al. v. Megan Roup, et al., 2:22-cv-04735 (C.D. Cal.)
Share
