Can workouts be copyrighted?

[randomguy42]

The state name is asked of all posters here. Please don't take offense at the question.

I also live in KS.


Sorry , I didnt realized it was asked of everyone

 

[randomguy42]

Does them being from another country help my friend in any way?

 

[quincy]

Thank you for providing your state name, randomguy42. I now know exactly who you are.

Just kidding.

Your friend has some options: He can inquire of the Canadian website directly how exactly he is infringing on their rights. He can have the facts reviewed by an attorney in his area and the attorney can draft a response to the website, tailored to meet the facts of what is discovered with this review. Or your friend cannot respond, continue on his merry way, and wait to see if he is sued - which could be a risky and costly option to take. The fact that the website is based out of Canada can make a lawsuit less likely, however.

It is hard to tell without seeing the website and the workouts, and without seeing exactly what your friend has taken from this website, if any threat to sue is one to take seriously. Whenever you use someone else's material without permission, however, and you attempt to profit off this material, you put yourself in a position of being sued.

I think the best option for your friend is to have the facts reviewed by a Kansas attorney and perhaps have a letter drafted to the Canadian company/website. With any legal issue, specific facts matter.

 

[randomguy42]

Thank you for providing your state name, randomguy42. I now know exactly who you are.

Just kidding.

Your friend has some options: He can inquire of the Canadian website directly how exactly he is infringing on their rights. He can have the facts reviewed by an attorney in his area and the attorney can draft a response to the website, tailored to meet the facts of what is discovered with this review. Or your friend cannot respond, continue on his merry way, and wait to see if he is sued - which could be a risky and costly option to take. The fact that the website is based out of Canada can make a lawsuit less likely, however.

It is hard to tell without seeing the website and the workouts, and without seeing exactly what your friend has taken from this website, if any threat to sue is one to take seriously. Whenever you use someone else's material without permission, however, and you attempt to profit off this material, you put yourself in a position of being sued.

I think the best option for your friend is to have the facts reviewed by a Kansas attorney and perhaps have a letter drafted to the Canadian company/website. With any legal issue, specific facts matter.

Wow! thanks for the advice! I'll pass it on.

I believe he has already responded to the website since they asked him to remove the application from sale. I think he will be removing the application from sale until he can determine exactly what may have been copied if anything. He said he responded quickly to them and politely in an attempt to show them he is willing to get the issue resolved.

is that the right thing for him to do?

Also, since he has done what they asked, is there still a chance they could sue him?

thans for your help!

 

[quincy]

Wow! thanks for the advice! I'll pass it on.

I believe he has already responded to the website since they asked him to remove the application from sale. I think he will be removing the application from sale until he can determine exactly what may have been copied if anything. He said he responded quickly to them and politely in an attempt to show them he is willing to get the issue resolved.

is that the right thing for him to do?

Also, since he has done what they asked, is there still a chance they could sue him?

thans for your help!

Ceasing the sale of the application is probably the smartest action for your friend to take until he can determine for sure what his legal risks are in marketing the app. It was smart for your friend to respond quickly and politely to the website when contacted by them.

If your friend's use on his app of the website material actually infringes on rights-protected material, the website could still sue your friend over this initial use of the material (nothing really prevents anyone from suing anyone else), but they are unlikely to pursue any legal action against him if he has promptly removed his application from the marketplace, he has not profited from the use of the rights-protected material, and the owner of the material has not suffered losses that would make a suit financially worthwhile.

And this is assuming there is any infringement at all, which there might not be.

Whatever the case and from what little you have posted, it does not sound like there has been the type of harm experienced by the website that would support the costs involved for a Canadian company to file a suit in the U.S. (or potentially a suit in Canada) against a U.S. resident.

Good luck to your friend.

 

[randomguy42]

thanks again

 

[quincy]

You're welcome.

 

[tranquility]

While nothing can be sure with copyright (Here, more likely trademark or dress.) this is less sure than many. Look to the decision(s) on Bikram (Or, hot.) yoga. Bikram had some wins by settlement, but has lost at least once in summary judgment. The court did not find the precise sequence of 26 poses should have been copyrighted as it did not fit a category under 102(a) and was a system or procedure so not copyright able under 102(b).

But, people with a lot of money can be a problem to those who they think hurt them. Especially with IP.

 

[quincy]

While nothing can be sure with copyright (Here, more likely trademark or dress.) this is less sure than many. Look to the decision(s) on Bikram (Or, hot.) yoga. Bikram had some wins by settlement, but has lost at least once in summary judgment. The court did not find the precise sequence of 26 poses should have been copyrighted as it did not fit a category under 102(a) and was a system or procedure so not copyright able under 102(b).

But, people with a lot of money can be a problem to those who they think hurt them. Especially with IP.

Bikram Choudhury was forced to settle his copyright infringement suit against Greg Gumucio because, although Choudhury had been able to register a copyright for his yoga poses and he sued over the unauthorized use by Gumucio of these poses, the Copyright Office admitted an error in allowing the registration in the first place.*

Gumucio still needed to defend against the copyright infringement (and trademark infringement and publicity rights) suit filed against him, but the new look at yoga poses by the Copyright Office worked in Gumucio's favor and helped lead to the settlement.

It was not the sequence of poses that were not copyrightable, however. Dance moves (choreography) can be copyrighted. Rather, the Copyright Office's ruling on the yoga poses was based on the fact that the yoga poses were not original (they are ancient), not creative (they have been used for eons), and, mostly, they are designed for health purposes.

I am not sure the Choudhury suit has much application to what randomguy described here, though. And, with two countries being involved, the risks of any suit decrease a bit. I am not sure a Canadian website owner is going to go to the trouble to file suit in Kansas against a United States resident.


*Edit to add: To look at the Copyright Office clarification as a result of the Choudhury suit, you can visit the following Federal Register page: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/22/2012-15235/registration-of-claims-to-copyright#p-3.

 

[tranquility]

Bikram Choudhury was forced to settle his copyright infringement suit against Greg Gumucio because, although Choudhury had been able to register a copyright for his yoga poses and he sued over the unauthorized use by Gumucio of these poses, the Copyright Office admitted an error in allowing the registration in the first place.*

Gumucio still needed to defend against the copyright infringement (and trademark infringement and publicity rights) suit filed against him, but the new look at yoga poses by the Copyright Office worked in Gumucio's favor and helped lead to the settlement.

It was not the sequence of poses that were not copyrightable, however. Dance moves (choreography) can be copyrighted. Rather, the Copyright Office's ruling on the yoga poses was based on the fact that the yoga poses were not original (they are ancient), not creative (they have been used for eons), and, mostly, they are designed for health purposes.

I am not sure the Choudhury suit has much application to what randomguy described here, though. And, with two countries being involved, the risks of any suit decrease a bit. I am not sure a Canadian website owner is going to go to the trouble to file suit in Kansas against a United States resident.


*Edit to add: To look at the Copyright Office clarification as a result of the Choudhury suit, you can visit the following Federal Register page: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2012/06/22/2012-15235/registration-of-claims-to-copyright#p-3.

Of course, sit ups are not "ancient".

That there is a theory the OP is different from the case I mentioned show how in the tank one can be for IP theory.

I steal all the time. As a soccer coach, I read many books with practices and coaching theories and use the best as my own. Total violation, under the wording. Sure, I suspect no black helicopters, but, under the wording this is a serious offense that warrants such enforcement. Heck, they tell me at the beginning of the video I see. Felony, many years in prison and hundreds of thousands in fines.

At some point the world will accept the reality of life. Until that day there is risk from those with more money than you for anything you do based on what another has done.

 

[quincy]

Of course, sit ups are not "ancient".

That there is a theory the OP is different from the case I mentioned show how in the tank one can be for IP theory.

I steal all the time. As a soccer coach, I read many books with practices and coaching theories and use the best as my own. Total violation, under the wording. Sure, I suspect no black helicopters, but, under the wording this is a serious offense that warrants such enforcement. Heck, they tell me at the beginning of the video I see. Felony, many years in prison and hundreds of thousands in fines.

At some point the world will accept the reality of life. Until that day there is risk from those with more money than you for anything you do based on what another has done.

Of course money is power and the less money you have, the less power you have. That reality is not limited to IP lawsuits.

Seriously, tranquility, I think you worry way too much.

But, if the DOJ ever does come after you for criminal infringement, for viewing a video or using someone else's coaching theories, PM me here on the forum and I'll see what I can do to get your felony charges reduced or, failing that, your prison time shortened.

 

[tranquility]

Of course money is power and the less money you have, the less power you have. That reality is not limited to IP lawsuits.

Seriously, tranquility, I think you worry way too much.

But, if the DOJ ever does come after you for criminal infringement, for viewing a video or using someone else's coaching theories, PM me here on the forum and I'll see what I can do to get your felony charges reduced or, failing that, your prison time shortened.

The difference is, the draconian penalties with purported violations that all of us do daily make any litigation truly problematical with a motivated plaintiff.

Have you scanned anything in the last few years? We have one client who has gotten the letter.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy-lawyers-who-want-1000-per-worker-for-using-scanners/

 

[coolmaltese]

The difference is, the draconian penalties with purported violations that all of us do daily make any litigation truly problematical with a motivated plaintiff.

Have you scanned anything in the last few years? We have one client who has gotten the letter.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/04/meet-the-nice-guy-lawyers-who-want-1000-per-worker-for-using-scanners/

I have been following that scanner action for awhile. One small business has beaten the patent trolls: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9766179.htm

 

[tranquility]

I have been following that scanner action for awhile. One small business has beaten the patent trolls: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/8/prweb9766179.htm

They're not "beaten" until the troll has to pay for the attorney. How much do you think that company paid in attorney fees before the plaintiff gave up?

 

[coolmaltese]

They're not "beaten" until the troll has to pay for the attorney. How much do you think that company paid in attorney fees before the plaintiff gave up?

Yes, I am sure they paid a small fortune to defend but at least the plaintiff didn't prevail. I view it as a crack in the armor that may have positive future effects...