Workout Videos That Include Dance Steps Are Not Subject to Copyright Protection

Thursday, February 19, 2026

Page 1

Ninth Circuit:

Workout Videos That Include Dance Steps Are Not Subject to Copyright Protection

By a MetNews Staff Writer

Depicted is the cover of workout DVD which, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has declared, is not subject to copyright protection based on choreography.

Nineteen copyrighted physical-fitness workout videos that include dance steps are not subject to protection against infringement claims, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has held, declaring that they are not artistic works.

The decision came Tuesday in a memorandum opinion signed by Judges Ana de Alba, Lucy H. Koh, and Kenneth Kiyul Lee. It affirms a summary judgment granted by District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez in favor of Megan Roup and her company, The Sculpt Society (“TSS”).

Undisputed is that TSS’s videos are substantially similar to those produced by plaintiff Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC’s (“TAMB”).

Method Defined

The defendants did not quarrel with the plaintiff’s assertion that the “TA Method” is a “revolutionary choreography protocol made up of custom and specific movements, sequences, and routines that uniquely combines choreography, fitness, and cardiovascular movement to help people create balance in their bodies so they can create balance in their lives.”

On June 12, 2024, District Court Judge Philip S. Gutierrez of the Central District of California granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that no reasonable juror could find that the “TA Method” is other than a method, process, or system and, as such is not subject to copyright protection. He found it unnecessary to decide if the method entailed choreography, which is protected.

Affirming, the Ninth Circuit panel said the issue is similar to that raised in a case it decided in 2015, Bikram’s Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, in which it was held that a sequence of 26 poses and two breathing exercises were not copyrightable.

The judges wrote:

“[H]ere, the DVDs, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, include routines that are described as ‘featur[ing] a selection and arrangement of movements...involving] classic dance steps that are recognized in various dance modalities such as ballet, hip-hop. jazz, and modern dance, as well as modifications to those classic dance steps...the DVDs were produced and distributed by a fitness company and marketed as ‘workouts’ that ‘will give you a body you never believed you could have.’ In one of the trailers for one of the DVDs. Tracy Anderson states the following: ‘With my Mat Program. I’ve carefully sequenced moves that help get rid of many typical problem areas .... If you do the video enough, you will see amazing results.’ Anderson describes another DVD as her ‘dance aerobics video’ that uses ‘choreography’ arid leads to ‘optimum calorie burning and [] keep[s] your metabolism going.’

“As such, the routines TAMB seeks to protect are like the Sequence because both are a series of bodily movements arranged for their ‘health and fitness benefits.’… The record also lacks any evidence that the audience for these routines perceives them as expressive choreography.”

The case is Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC v. Roup, 24-6936.