Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC v. Roup

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 17, 2026
• Docket: 24-6936
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TRACY ANDERSON MIND AND BODY, No. 24-6936 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-04735-PSG-E Plaintiff - Appellant,

and MEMORANDUM*

T.A. STUDIO NEW YORK, LLC, a California limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

MEGAN ROUP; THE SCULPT SOCIETY, LLC, a California limited liability company,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 2, 2026 Pasadena, California

Before: LEE, KOH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.

Appellant Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC (“TAMB”) appeals the

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. district court’s order granting summary judgment to Appellees Megan Roup and

The Sculpt Society, LLC (“TSS”) on TAMB’s copyright claim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

A district court’s decision to grant summary judgment is reviewed de

novo. Desire, LLC v. Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir.), cert.

denied, 142 S. Ct. 343 (2021). “This court’s review is governed by the same

standard used by the trial court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c).”

Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 330 F.3d 1110, 1131 (9th

Cir. 2003). Summary judgment may be affirmed “on any ground supported by the

record.” Cruz v. Nat’l Steel & Shipbuilding Co., 910 F.3d 1263, 1270 (9th Cir.

2018).

The district court did not err in granting Roup and TSS summary judgment

on TAMB’s copyright claim. The Copyright Act sets forth various categories of

“original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression” that are

afforded copyright protection. 17 U.S. Code § 102(a)(1)–(8) (listing, under

Section 102(a)(4), “choreographic works” as a proper subject matter of copyright

protection). But “[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of

authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation,

concept, principle, or discovery.” Id. § 102(b).

Here, on de novo review, this Court concludes that the routines in the TA

2 24-6936 Works DVDs (hereinafter, the “DVDs”) are uncopyrightable under Section 102(b),

and thus not protectable under Section 102(a)(4) of the Act pursuant to this Court’s

decision in Bikram’s Yoga Coll. of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d

1032 (9th Cir. 2015).

Bikram’s involved the copyrightability of “a sequence of twenty-six asanas

and two breathing exercises, arranged in a particular order, which [the plaintiff]

calls the ‘Sequence.’” Id. at 1035. “[The plaintiff] popularized the Sequence by

marketing the many health and fitness benefits it provides.” Id. In a published

book registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, Bikram’s Beginning Yoga Class,

the plaintiff “include[d] descriptions, photographs, and drawings of the Sequence’s

twenty-six poses and two breathing exercises.” Id. Specifically, “as [the plaintiff]

describe[d] it, the Sequence [as bodily movements] is 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.” Id. at 1038 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The plaintiff, alongside his business, then sued the defendants for allegedly

infringing on their copyright of the Sequence. Id. at 1036.

This Court affirmed a grant of summary judgment to defendants on the

copyright claim. The Court concluded that the Sequence was uncopyrightable

under Section 102(b) because it was “designed to improve health” and “set[] forth

3 24-6936 a method to attain identifiable . . . results.” Id. at 1036, 1040. Bikram further held

that “[t]he Sequence is not copyrightable as a choreographic work” under Section

102(a)(4) because it is a method, “idea, process, or system to which copyright

protection may ‘[i]n no case’ extend” under Section 102(b). Id. at 1044. “This is

true,” Bikram explained, even if the Sequence was “conceived with at least some

aesthetic considerations in mind.” Id. at 1040.

Similarly, here, the DVDs, registered with the U.S. Copyright Office,

include routines that are described as “featur[ing] a selection and arrangement of

movements . . . involv[ing] 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” and 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

4 24-6936 benefits.” See id. at 1035. “Even if the [routines in the DVDs] could fit within

some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography, it remains . . . ineligible for

copyright protection” because “the design . . . primarily reflects function, not

expression.” See id. at 1040, 1044. The record also lacks any evidence that the

audience for these routines perceives them as expressive choreography. See

Hanagami v. Epic Games, Inc., 85 F.4th 931, 940 (9th Cir. 2023) (noting that a

protected choreographic work may be presented before an audience, contain

dramatic content, or otherwise include elements of an expressive performance).

TAMB thus improperly “attempts to secure copyright protection for a healing art . .

. designed to yield physical benefits and a sense of well-being.” See Bikram’s, 803

F.3d at 1039. Concluding otherwise would grant TAMB “monopoly rights over

these functional physical sequences” and would “extend copyright protection

beyond its constitutional [and statutory] limits.” See id. at 1044.

In sum, given the significant similarities to the Sequence, there is no room

for a reasonable difference of opinion, and no genuine dispute of material fact, that

the routines in the DVDs are not choreographic works protected by the Act.

AFFIRMED.

5 24-6936