Tracy Anderson v. Roup — Ninth Circuit Holds Workout Routines Are Not Copyrightable Choreography

Background

Tracy Anderson — the celebrity fitness trainer known for her workout method and high-profile clients — sued Megan Roup and The Sculpt Society, alleging that Roup’s fitness videos infringed copyrights in 19 of Anderson’s fitness DVDs. Anderson claimed her exercise sequences constituted protectable “choreographic works” under the Copyright Act.

The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Anderson’s workout routines were not copyrightable. Anderson appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Court’s Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed in an unpublished memorandum disposition. The court held that Anderson’s exercise sequences are functional routines, not expressive choreographic works entitled to copyright protection. While the Copyright Act does protect choreography, that protection extends to artistic expression — not to the functional aspects of physical exercise routines.

The court found that Anderson’s workout sequences, however creative in their fitness design, are fundamentally directed at achieving physical fitness results rather than conveying artistic expression. The arrangement and selection of exercises in a workout routine are dictated by functional considerations — which muscles to target, in what order, and for what duration — rather than by the kind of creative choices that characterize protectable choreography.

Key Takeaways

• Exercise routines are functional, not expressive. Even elaborate, carefully designed workout sequences are primarily dictated by functional fitness considerations and do not qualify as copyrightable choreographic works.
• The line between choreography and exercise. Copyright protects choreographic works as artistic expression, but that protection does not extend to sequences of physical movements whose primary purpose is physical fitness rather than artistic communication.
• Fitness industry content protection remains limited. Fitness creators seeking to protect their proprietary methods may need to rely on trade secret protection, contractual restrictions, or brand-based strategies rather than copyright in their workout sequences.

Why It Matters

With the explosion of online fitness content — from YouTube workouts to subscription-based platforms like Peloton and Apple Fitness+ — the question of whether workout routines can be copyrighted has significant commercial implications. This ruling reinforces that copyright law does not protect exercise sequences, even when created by high-profile trainers with distinctive methods. For the fitness industry, this means that the competitive advantage in workout content lies in branding, personality, production quality, and trade secret protections for proprietary training methodologies — not in copyright claims over the exercises themselves.