Can Yoga Sequences Be Copyrighted? The Bikram Yoga Case and the Limits of Movement Copyright

Can a sequence of yoga poses, dance steps, or pilates movements be protected by copyright? The question has occupied international courts, copyright offices, and IP scholars for years. The leading answer — established in the United States by the Bikram Choudhury v. Yoga to the People case and confirmed by the US Copyright Office — is no: sequences of functional physical movements designed for fitness, health, or wellness purposes are ideas, processes, and systems, not protected expression. Copyright protects only the specific expression of these systems (books, videos, photographs), not the underlying physical sequences themselves.

This guide analyses the Bikram case and parallel issues, with attention to the Italian framework. For the foundational idea/expression doctrine, see our idea/expression dichotomy guide. For the broader copyright framework, see our master pillar guide to copyright law in Italy and Europe.

The Bikram Yoga case

Bikram Choudhury developed “Bikram Yoga” — a sequence of 26 yoga postures and two breathing exercises performed in a heated room. Starting in 2002, Choudhury asserted copyright over the entire sequence, claiming that nobody could teach, demonstrate, or organise yoga classes using his sequence without his authorisation. He registered the sequence with the US Copyright Office and aggressively enforced his claimed rights through cease-and-desist letters and litigation against unauthorised studios.

In 2011, Choudhury sued Yoga to the People — a competing studio founded by a former student of his and located near one of Bikram’s New York studios. The case became a watershed for the legal status of yoga and exercise sequences. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that the Bikram Yoga sequence was not copyrightable subject matter.

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning rested on a classic feature of copyright: “you can’t protect an idea, but you can protect the expression of that idea”. The court held that Bikram’s sequence is an idea, process, or system designed to improve health — and copyright law does not protect ideas, processes, or systems. The court drew a memorable analogy: granting copyright over the yoga sequence would be “akin to giving a surgeon the exclusive right to perform a complicated surgery”. Processes and procedures, the court explained, are protectable only by patents, not by copyright.

Bikram retained copyright over specific expressions of his system — his books, DVDs, written descriptions, and similar fixed materials. But the sequence itself, and the act of teaching it, was free to be used by anyone.

The US Copyright Office statement

The US Copyright Office formalised its position in a Statement of Policy of 18 June 2012: “a selection, coordination, or arrangement of functional physical movements such as sports movements, exercises, and other ordinary motor activities” does not represent the type of authorship intended to be protected under the US Copyright Act as choreographic works.

However, the Copyright Office distinguished functional sequences from genuine choreography: a “composition and arrangement of a related series of dance movements and patterns organised into an integrated, coherent, and expressive whole” could rise to the level of original choreographic authorship.

This distinction matters: a Pilates routine designed for back strength is functional and not protectable. A modern dance composition designed for expressive performance can be protected. The line is sometimes hard to draw — choreographers occasionally combine functional and expressive elements — but the framework focuses on the work’s primary character.

What IS protectable

Even where the underlying sequence is not protectable, fitness and wellness creators have several IP tools available:

• Copyright on specific expression: books, manuals, video recordings, photographs, written descriptions, and other fixed expressions of the system are protected;
• Choreographic copyright: where the sequence rises to genuine artistic choreography (rather than functional exercise), it can be protected under specific provisions;
• Trademark protection: distinctive brand names (“Bikram”, “Pilates”, “CrossFit”) can be protected as trademarks, with licensing programs generating substantial revenue;
• Trade dress: distinctive studio environment, instructor uniforms, signature equipment can be protected;
• “Train the trainer” programs: licensing of instruction methodology through certification programs;
• Trade secrets: proprietary methodologies kept confidential (training manuals not made public);
• Contractual protection: licensing agreements and franchise arrangements with studios using the brand.

The Pilates trademark and generic mark issue

A parallel cautionary tale: in October 2000, a Manhattan federal court declared that “Pilates” — originally a trademark of Joseph Pilates — had become generic, like yoga and karate. The decision affected thousands of Pilates instructors who had been prevented from describing their classes as “Pilates” by the trademark holder.

The Pilates case illustrates the genericide risk for fitness and wellness brands: when a brand name becomes the common term for the underlying activity, it loses trademark protection. The same risk has been managed (with mixed results) by other brand owners: “Yoga” and “Karate” are also generic terms; “Bikram Yoga” risks becoming generic for any heated yoga sequence; “Pilates” has fully lost protection.

Brand-building strategy for fitness and wellness creators therefore involves careful trademark management: using the brand consistently with descriptive qualifiers, enforcing against misuse, registering trademarks across jurisdictions, and ensuring the brand never becomes synonymous with the underlying activity.

The Italian framework

Italian copyright law approaches the issue similarly. Under Article 1 of the Italian Copyright Act (LDA), copyright protects “works of the intellect of a creative character”. Article 2 LDA lists protected categories, including:

• Article 2 paragraph 3 LDA: “choreographic works and works of pantomime, where the trace is fixed in writing or otherwise” — explicitly protects choreography, but with the fixation requirement;
• The general framework excludes ideas, methods, processes, and systems from protection (consistent with international copyright tradition under the idea/expression dichotomy).

An Italian Bikram-equivalent case would proceed similarly: the yoga sequence as functional exercise is not protectable; fixed expressions (books, videos) are; brand names registered as trademarks under D.Lgs. 30/2005 receive separate protection.

For deeper analysis of the idea/expression doctrine in Italian and EU law, see our idea/expression dichotomy guide. For what is not protected by copyright generally, see our protecting ideas guide.

Traditional knowledge and India’s response

The Bikram controversy attracted international attention because yoga is rooted in Indian traditional knowledge spanning thousands of years. The Indian government responded to claims like Bikram’s with structured legal action:

• 2006: India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy began compiling the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) — a database of traditional Indian knowledge including yoga;
• August 2006: a conference at the Indian Institute of Technology addressed corporate appropriation of traditional knowledge;
• November 2009: India gave the US Patent and Trademark Office access to the TKDL, enabling examiners to identify when “novel” patent applications were anticipated by traditional knowledge.

The TKDL framework has substantially limited overreaching IP claims on traditional Indian practices, and serves as a model for other jurisdictions facing similar issues with traditional knowledge.

Modern issues: AI-generated routines

The AI era adds new dimensions:

• AI-generated workout sequences: fitness AI applications generate custom workout sequences. The underlying sequences are not protectable; the AI-generated description and video output may be protectable as expression with substantial human creative input;
• AI-generated instructor likenesses: AI deepfake instructors raise personality rights and AI Act transparency obligations;
• AI training on yoga videos: under DSM Articles 3-4, training on copyrighted yoga instruction is permitted unless rights holders opt out — the underlying sequence is not protected, but the specific video instruction may be.

How DANDI supports fitness and wellness brands

DANDI.media advises fitness brands, wellness creators, and dance choreographers on IP strategy:

• Brand-building strategy with trademark registration and management;
• Copyright protection for fixed expressions (books, videos, training materials);
• Choreographic copyright assessment;
• Franchise and licensing agreements for studios and instructors;
• Trade secret protection for proprietary methodologies;
• Anti-genericide brand management;
• AI compliance for AI-generated wellness content.

For consultation, book directly with Avv. Claudia Roggero or Avv. Donato Di Pelino.

Related guides

Dandi Law Firm provides legal assistance in several Practice Areas. Check out our Services or contact Us!