IP Law Daily, COPYRIGHT—9th Cir.: Fitness trainer can dance if she wants to, but still won’t get a copyright, (Feb 19, 2026)

By Matthew Hersh, J.D.

The plaintiff sold a wellness method, not a copyrightable choreography.

A fitness trainer was not entitled to copyright protection over a series of self-developed choreographed routines because they were marketed as workouts and their design primarily reflected function and not expression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held. The court, in affirming a grant of summary judgment against the fitness trainer’s copyright infringement lawsuit, emphasized that to conclude otherwise would grant the trainer monopoly rights over functional physical sequences and would “extend copyright protection beyond its constitutional and statutory limits” (Tracy Anderson Mind v. Megan Roup, No. 24-6936 (9th Cir. Feb. 17, 2026)).

The lawsuit was brought by Tracy Anderson, the self-described pioneer of the choreography-based fitness movement. The complaint alleges that she developed the so-called “Tracy Anderson Method”—exercise routines combining choreography, fitness, and cardiovascular movement—“after decades of research, development, testing, and investment.” She is also CEO of Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, or TAMB, which offers “choreography based fitness and mat movement classes at state-of-the-art studios around the world and in online classes, as well as lifestyle products related to wellness, nutrition, and apparel, among others.” The company claims to own copyrights to DVDs and other forms of media that incorporate the exercise routines.

The lawsuit takes aim at Megan Roup, a former trainer for TAMB. The complaint alleges that just one month after quitting, the former trainer founded an entity called The Sculpt Society that offers choreography-based fitness and mat movement classes in direct competition with Anderson and TAMB. Anderson and her studio sued the former trainer for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, breach of contract, and violations of California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.

The trial court granted summary judgment for Roup on the copyright infringement claim. The Copyright Act protects expression, the court explained, but denies protection for “any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery.” In a very similar case, Bikram's Yoga College of India, L.P. v. Evolation Yoga, LLC, 803 F.3d 1032 (9th Cir. 2015), the court noted, a yoga teacher was denied copyright protection for a sequence of twenty-six yoga poses and two breathing exercises because it was merely “a system designed to yield physical benefits and a sense of well-being” and not a protectable form of expression. The same rationale applied here, the trial court found. “Exercises, while undoubtedly the product of much time and effort,” the court found, “are, at bottom, simply a process for achieving increased consciousness.” Thus, “such processes, even if original, cannot be protected by copyright.”

Anderson chose to forego the other two claims and appealed on the copyright claim only, leading to this opinion.

Copyrightability of training routine. The court of appeals, in a short unpublished decision, affirmed the judgment below. As in the Bikram case, the court noted, Anderson’s routines were described as “featuring 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.” Moreover, the court noted, Anderson’s 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.” As such, the court noted, the routines at issue were like the yoga sequence in Bikram “because both are a series of bodily movements arranged for their ‘health and fitness.’”

Nor did it matter that the fitness routines at issue were the subject of Anderson’s choreography, the court found. “Even if the routine could fit within some colloquial definitions of dance or choreography,” the court noted, “the design primarily reflects function, not expression.” Moreover, the court noted, the record lacked “any evidence that the audience for these routines perceives them as expressive choreography.” As a result, the court observed, Anderson was thus improperly attempted to secure copyright protection “for a healing art designed to yield physical benefits and a sense of well-being.” Concluding otherwise, the court reasoned, would grant Anderson “monopoly rights over these functional physical sequences” and would “extend copyright protection beyond its constitutional and statutory limits.” The claim was properly denied on summary judgment.

The Case is No. 24-6936.

Attorneys: Gina L. Durham (DLA Piper, LLP) for Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC. Nathaniel Bach (Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP) for Megan Roup.

Companies: Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC

MainStory: TopStory Copyright CaliforniaNews GCNNews