Copyright claims on Bikram Yoga

Bikram Choudhury made a series of claims that his yoga practice, Bikram Yoga, was under copyright and that it could not be taught or presented by anyone whom he had not authorized, starting in 2002. In 2011 Choudhury started a lawsuit against Yoga to the People, a competing yoga studio founded by a former student of Bikram's and with a location near one of the Bikram Yoga studios in New York. As a result of that lawsuit, the United States Copyright Office issued a clarification that yoga postures (asanas) could not be copyrighted in the way claimed by Bikram, and that Yoga to the People and others could continue to freely teach these exercises. In 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling that the Bikram Yoga Sequence was not copyrightable subject matter.

Background

Bikram Choudhury goes by his first name, "Bikram".[1] He is most known in popular culture for mass marketing his yoga practice into a franchising system of 900 yoga studios as of 2004.[1] He insists that classes be taught in these studios in a certain way, and that they taught a series of 26 yoga postures.[1] Starting in 2002, he began having his lawyers send out cease and desist letters to any yoga studio which presented his Bikram Yoga sequences without his authorization.[1]

In the United States, Choudhury has claimed, and been aggressive in threatening suit over, broad copyrights in most aspects of the practice, teaching, and business of the system. He extracted settlements from a number of yoga teachers and studios.[2][3] However, in 2012, the US Copyright Office concluded that copyright for Bikram's sequence of 26 postures had been issued in error.[4] This led a federal district court, and later the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to reject Choudhury's claims and rule that the sequence of postures was not copyrightable.

Bikram Yoga versus Yoga to the People

Yoga to the People was a yoga studio established by one of Bikram Choudhury's former work associates. It aimed to make yoga available to all, regardless of ability to pay.[5] After Yoga to the People opened a yoga studio near a Bikram Yoga studio, Bikram started a lawsuit to have them cease presenting Bikram Yoga sequences at their studio.[6][7] [8]

As a result of that lawsuit, the United States Copyright Office issued a clarification that yoga postures (asanas) could not be copyrighted in the way claimed by Bikram, and that Yoga to the People and others could continue to freely teach these exercises.[9] After that clarification Yoga to the People and Bikram came to an agreement that Yoga to the People would not present Bikram Yoga.[10]

Despite not having a court-ordered obligation to do so, Yoga to the People ceased to present Bikram Yoga sequences in its studios and instead began using its own sequences.[11][12][13] Of the settlement, Bikram said ""I win, he lose, and that's it... Nobody will ever be able to steal Bikram yoga anymore."[13]

Bikram's Yoga College v. Evolation Yoga

Evolation Yoga was founded by a previous associate of Bikram Choudhury.[14] Choudhury similarly sued Evolation Yoga for teaching hot yoga with the same sequence of postures as Bikram Yoga.

On December 17, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge Otis Wright ruled that Bikram Choudhury does not have copyright protection for the sequence of 26 yoga postures and two breathing exercises commonly known as “Bikram Yoga.” The ruling, in favor of Evolation Yoga LLC and its founders Mark Drost and Zefea Samson, meant that non-Bikram studios are allowed to offer hot yoga classes utilizing that same 26-posture sequence—a legal right Choudhury actively and vigorously contested for several years.[15][16]

On October 8, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the sequence of yoga postures was not copyrightable subject matter under 17 U.S.C. § 102(b) and that Choudhury's copyright in a book describing his system did not give him copyright over the sequence itself.[17]

References
  1. staff (17 June 2004). "Face value: The litigious yogi". The Economist. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  2. Farrell, Maureen (September 3, 2009). "Bikram Yoga's New Twists". Forbes.com.
  3. "Yoga, Inc". Bad Dog Tales. Archived from the original on 2015-02-06. Retrieved 2015-02-23.
  4. "Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2012 / Rules and Regulations" (PDF). U. S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved 9 February 2013.
  5. Steele, Rachel (11 February 2010). "Yoga To The People in New York City (aka Yoga With A Lot of People)". Elephant Journal. Retrieved 20 February 2015.
  6. McGrath, Ben (6 February 2012). "Steamed". The New Yorker. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  7. Solomon, Serena (30 November 2011). "Bikram Originator Sues Yoga to the People for 'Stealing' Poses - East Village & Lower East Side". dnainfo.com. Archived from the original on 23 February 2015. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  8. Gray, Rosie (6 December 2011). "Yoga to the People Takes on Bikram Choudhury on Facebook". Village Voice. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  9. Brack, Kate (13 April 2013). "The Fallout From A Downward-Facing Dog Fight | Brooklyn Based". brooklynbased.com. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  10. Coscarelli; Thorn, Max (12 December 2012). "Yoga to the People Settles Lawsuit, Stays Cheap -- NYMag". nymag.com. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  11. Newman, Andy (10 December 2012). "Yoga to the People to Stop Offering Hot Yoga to Settle Bikram Suit - NYTimes.com". cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  12. Hoffman, Meredith (3 January 2013). "Yoga to the People Unveils '26 Plus 6' Bikram Yoga Replacement - Williamsburg - DNAinfo.com New York". dnainfo.com. Archived from the original on 23 February 2015. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  13. Moss, Rebecca (11 December 2012). "The Hot Yoga War's Messy End: Why Yoga to the People Won't Be Teaching Bikram Yoga Anymore | Village Voice". blogs.villagevoice.com. Retrieved 23 February 2015.
  14. Moss, Rebecca (19 December 2012). "Hold that Pose: Federal Judge Rules that Bikram Yoga Cannot be Copyrighted". Retrieved 27 October 2015.
  15. "Yoga, AstraZeneca, Intel, UN Treaty: Intellectual Property". Bloomberg.com. 2012-12-17. Retrieved 2023-05-26.
  16. BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA, L.P.; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY, v. EVOLATION YOGA, LLC; MARK DROST; ZEFEA SAMSON; and DOES 1 through 10 (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2012) ("As such, we hold it unconstitutional.").Text
  17. BIKRAM’S YOGA COLLEGE OF INDIA, L.P.; BIKRAM CHOUDHURY, v. EVOLATION YOGA, LLC; MARK DROST; ZEFEA SAMSON (UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 2015) ("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.").Text
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.