|
|
| I've heard rumors that Bikram and Open Source Yoga have settled their case but have no idea of the outcome. Do any teachers know? I'm curious. |
|
| |
|
| Part of the settlement does not let me tell you. They will come out with a statement. I can barely understand it. Need to get help.
Edited by innerline 2005-05-06 10:51 PM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
  
Location: A Blue State | Well, let us know the details once they are public....
... who gets the better deal?
Edited by Bay Guy 2005-05-07 12:25 AM
|
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State |
This has just been posted on the OSYU Web Site:
Bikram Choudhury ("Bikram") and Open Source Yoga Unity ("OSYU") announced today that they have settled the litigation between them involving OSYU's claim that Bikram's copyrights and trademarks relating to BIKRAM YOGA are invalid, and that Bikram engaged in copyright misuse by sending out cease and desist letters. The parties have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of their differences, and the lawsuit has been dismissed.
Both sides expressed their pleasure that they have put this matter behind them, and look forward to working together in the future to continue to bring the benefits of yoga to the world. |
|
| |
|
| I'm guessing that the end result will be that Bikram will have the right to exercise control over any studios that use his (brand) name but he can't copyright the asanas or even the sequence.
It will be interesting to see if they address the use of non-affiliated studios promoting Bikram teacher certifications. |
|
| |
|
| Please excuse my ignorance, I haven't been following this closely. I totally agree that Bikram has the right to control his own name, and that studios who are not affiliated should not use it. I don't see how he could claim copyright on the poses (or how he could control that, how would he know if I did his sequence in my home without paying anybody?).
But, if a Bikram teacher were to work at a studio w/ teachers from other traditions, could the studio not advertise "We have Bikram Yoga with Jenny, Kripalu Yoga with Dan, and YogaFit with Kelly!" Would that be lawsuit material?
Or does the lawsuit just address the fact that the above studio call itself "Kalamazoo Bikram Yoga" when only 1 of 7 teachers is trained/certified by Mr. Choudhury?
Just curious! And nosy!  |
|
| |
|
| Jean:
Just look back in the form and you can find plenty of discussions on the lawsuit.
There is nothing on Biram's site. Does anybody have details of the settlement agreement or is it a non-disclosure type deal.
I hope not, that wouldn't be too "open" of open source yoga. |
|
| |
|
| Yes - it would be ironic if they couldn't reveal the settlement, considering that was part of their complaint. They wanted to know what settlement Bikram & (Morrison's?) had reached, claimed it was important for the yoga community to know. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | It rather creates the impression that the OSYU "collective" was just
a few studio owners who were out for themselves. When you consider
that the identifiable complaintants include one or two big operators
and some smaller players (some of whom are now out of business),
you might conclude that a deal was cut on behalf of the big fish.
I have a friend who does litigation --- their impression was that Bikram
probably knew he'd lose in court whereas OSYU didn't want to spend
the money that it would have taken to go to trial. That's just speculation,
of course.
Bikram's web site has now dropped all mention of the copyright on the sequence....
|
|
| |
|
| I took a class with Jimmy Barkan when I was in Florida in March. We were chatting about the lawsuit in the changing room after class and he was very confident that he'd win. He said that they had found a book (I forget which one) published several years before Bikram's book that had the heart of the sequence exactly replicated - something like cobra through rabbit, pose for pose. I wish I could remember the exact details. |
|
| |
|
| Mitch - 2005-05-10 10:08 PM
He said that they had found a book (I forget which one) published several years before Bikram's book that had the heart of the sequence exactly replicated - something like cobra through rabbit, pose for pose. I wish I could remember the exact details.
No kidding?! That is really interesting! Has anyone else out there heard this and if so, what's the book? |
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-05-10 9:59 PM
It rather creates the impression that the OSYU "collective" was just
a few studio owners who were out for themselves.
I Bikram's web site has now dropped all mention of the copyright on the sequence....
Yes - it does smell that way, doesn't it? Was there a lot of mention of the copyright issue on the website before or just a blip? (I know -- bad Bikram teacher, not paying enough attention to the website!) |
|
| |
|
| According this this: http://swamij.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=840
The settlement was more in Bikram's favor. |
|
| |
|
| That statement barely said anything.
I tend to agree with Bay Guy that the sealed settlement creates the impression that the OSYU "collective" was just a few studio owners who were in it for themselves which incidentally was Bikram's first line of defense when he unsuccessfully tried to have the case thrown out of court.
This was posted on the OSYU website:
UPDATE - May 3, 2005 - CASE SETTLED
Bikram Choudhury ("Bikram") and Open Source Yoga Unity ("OSYU") announced today that they have settled the litigation between them involving OSYU's claim that Bikram's copyrights and trademarks relating to BIKRAM YOGA are invalid, and that Bikram engaged in copyright misuse by sending out cease and desist letters. The parties have reached a mutually satisfactory resolution of their differences, and the lawsuit has been dismissed.
Both sides expressed their pleasure that they have put this matter behind them, and look forward to working together in the future to continue to bring the benefits of yoga to the world. |
|
| |
|
| That's the same statement posted at the top of this thread. |
|
| |
|
| Oops! Yup, BG had diligently posted it earlier.
Maybe Open Source Yoga may provide some details once the dust settles.
|
|
| |
|
| I spoke to one of the teachers here in LA who is close to the action and learned a couple things about the settlement.
Bikram and OSYU agree to stop suing each other.
Studios with certified teachers can use the word Bikram descriptively to describe their classes but cannot "brand" themselves as a BIKRAM studio unless Bikram allows it in their contract.
If Bikram wants to sue someone who isn't in on the settlement, he has to send them a copy of the settlement so they can sign on and be protected/obligated by it's terms.
Studios with teachers that are not certified have to put some kind of notice in their materials specifically stating that they are not certified by BIKRAM.
I don't know if there's anything more to it but this sounds really reasonable to me. BC gets to keep his brand, nobody suing over who owns asanas, small players get to be part of the settlement. Doesn't sound like a huge victory for either side although it sounds like OSYU got what they wanted. |
|
| |
|
Expert Yogi
Posts: 2479
Location: A Blue State | This doesn't exactly address the copyright claim, although it sounds as if one
can easily obviate its enforcement under these terms.
For example, suppose someone teaches "hot yoga" using either the Bikram
sequence or one very similar to it. Under the terms of this settlement,
can one avoid infringement simply by acknowledging that one is not
certified by Bikram?
And what about Bikram's "dialog"? Surely that remains protected?
|
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy,
I believe you are right. All of the copyrights still stand but the settlement renders them virtually unenforceable. It seems to give certified bikram teachers broad rights to teach the sequence and use the dialog or any derivations. I believe they can teach Bikram yoga any way they see fit and even call it Bikram yoga as long as they arent' branded that way. Not sure what branding means though. |
|
| |
|
| I'm not a lawyer, but I do know about branding. I'd think that certified teachers can advertise that very fact - that they are teachers certified by Bikram. I don't imagine that they'd be advertising Bikram Yoga - they'd probably advertise "hot hatha yoga" with a trained bikram instructor.
Having an non-franchised studio advertising "Bikram Yoga" would (potentially negatively) affect his brand. If they vary the sequence, alter the dialog, or change the room design/heat, they would be providing customers with a non-Bikram experience while calling it Bikram Yoga.
It's the McDonald's theory - I can go anywhere and I know what I'm getting. If you put bacon on a Big Mac, you're not a McDonald's.
|
|
| |
|
| Hi,
I am a graduate student in anthropology in California and am studying yoga as a transnational practice - part of this is looking at how yoga studios and franchises operate. I have been following the OSYU v. Bikram case and just wanted to let people know that I am floating around and looking into the IP issues associated with traditional knowledges (I intend to use it as a platform to look at problems in property and legal systems). I was wondering if anyone would be interested in talking to me more about Hot Yoga and their practice in a most general sense.
thanks! any help would be greatly appreciated. Allison |
|
| |
|
| Bay Guy - 2005-05-10 9:59 PM
It rather creates the impression that the OSYU "collective" was just
a few studio owners who were out for themselves. When you consider
that the identifiable complaintants include one or two big operators
and some smaller players (some of whom are now out of business),
you might conclude that a deal was cut on behalf of the big fish.
Exactly. This says it pretty well: From eweek.com: "OSYU's apparently altruistic act of draping itself with the mantel of the open source movement now seems crafty and disingenuous. The true state of matters has emerged and it's just business as usual. The OSYU is just another set of pragmatic business people who cut the best deal they could for themselves. When it was time to reach a settlement, openness was the first casualty."
Hmmph.  |
|
| |
|
| Cat Mom,
From what I've heard about the settlement, Bikram has to send a copy of the settlement to anyone that he tries take action against and allow them to become a party to the settlement at that time. That seems like a settlement that applies to all players, not just the OSYU members. |
|
| |
|
| In it's website OSYU says it is a non-profit organization and solicits donations for its cause. I am sure the donors may want to know what happened in the settlement. This is from OSYU's website:
Open Source Yoga Unity (OSYU), a nonprofit California corporation, was formed to provide a common voice, and the pooling of resources, to resist the enforcement of the copyright protection of any Yoga style thereby ensuring its continued natural unfettered practice for all to enjoy and develop.
While we appreciate the teachings of Bikram Choudhury and other yoga teachers, we do not believe that they have the legal right to impose control over another's Yoga teaching or practice. Yoga exists in the public domain.
For hundreds, even thousands of years, the wisdom of yoga has evolved and grown in the hearts and minds of teachers and students.
We encourage the free flow of information, including the wisdom of yoga, to all people.
1. Make a donation
OSYU will require energy, cooperation, time and money. We have formed this group in order to pool resources and so that we go through this process only once. The stronger and more effective we are as a group, the sooner we can do away with this fear and uncertainty unnecessarily associated with our businesses and yoga practice. OSYU is in the process of securing tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and any financial contributions made to OSYU are expected to be tax deductible once it achieves this status. You may send a donation in any amount to:
Open Source Yoga Unity
P.O. Box 192444
San Francisco, CA 94119
Alternately, your studio can make a contribution to OSYU using a business credit card by means of the PayPal system.
It is suggested that an appropriate donation is an amount equal to a six month pass to your studio. |
|
| |
|
| yogalicious - 2005-05-17 11:09 PM
Cat Mom,
From what I've heard about the settlement, Bikram has to send a copy of the settlement to anyone that he tries take action against and allow them to become a party to the settlement at that time. That seems like a settlement that applies to all players, not just the OSYU members.
So how do you know if you're putting yourself in a true position to be sued by Bikram? |
|
| |
|
| fortunately or unfortunately - the settlement out-of-court still leaves the legal question as to the reach of copyright (and whether or not it can in fact cover the performance of yoga sequences) wide open and undecided ... so legally there really is no greater information/guidance for studios that feel they might be in danger of being accused of IP (trademark and copyright) violations... and with the non-disclosure aspect it could very well turn out that it is like this suit never even happened... I guess there is no way to tell until some more time has passed.
One thing that might be a factor in the settlement - is that with court mandated mediation/settlement conferences there is often pressure (from the court and also the pressure on individual parties due to the financial and time requirements of a trial) on the parties to reach an amicable settlement and not go on to trial. OSYU could very well have been stuck between a rock and a hard place and explicitly told (perhaps by the court that going to trial may not be a good idea - I have seen similar things in other courts and mediation programs). In my thoughts the IP laws in this area can't really adequately deal with derivatives of cultural intellectual properties. |
|
| |
|
| Hmm. I suppose that could be true -- maybe we should just give Open Source the benefit of the doubt. |
|
| |
|
| Looking at the court documents leading up to the settlement, it looks as though the court was sending the message that there was going to be no clear victor in this case if it went to trial due to not enough evidence on either side to support any sort of declaratory judgement. This makes me believe that both sides gave up and that the same would happen in any other copyright case about yoga. I'd have to deduce that yoga copyright claims are not strong enough to hold up in court. So while it's possible to copyright yoga, it seems impossible to enforce those copyrights. |
|
| |
|
| The following is a recent article regarding the settlement. Makes open source looks rather closed 
Yoga Suit Settlement Beggars Open Source Ideals
By John Pallatto
May 13, 2005
Opinion: Openness was the first casuality when Open Source Yoga Unity quietly settled its lawsuit challenging the validity of Bikram Choudhry's copyrights on his yoga training routine.
A group of independent yoga instructors has quietly settled a lawsuit that waved the banner of the open source software movement in their effort to practice their fitness discipline free of the copyright claims and license fees demanded by an enterprising yoga master.
While it is always positive when people can settle their differences without the expense and trouble of a court trial, in this case it's quite a let down.
That because the independent yoga instructors, who brought the suit under the name Open Source Yoga Unity, (OSYU) has apparently abandoned any pretense of battling for the common good against the misuse of copyright claims in return for private legal concessions that benefit only themselves.
That's particularly disappointing considering that OSYU had publicly proclaimed on its Web site how it was sticking up for the little guy in challenging the validity of Bikram Choudhry's copyright claims for his yoga training system.
The stated purpose of the suit was to "resist the enforcement of the copyright protection of any Yoga style thereby ensuring its continued natural unfettered practice for all to enjoy and develop."
However, the group announced on its site on May 3 that the suit had been dismissed after both sides had reached a "mutually satisfactory resolution." OSYU and Bikram Yoga "look forward to working together in the future to continue to bring the benefits of yoga to the world."
The agreement was reached after both sides started settlement talks in late March. Attorneys representing OSYU, James P Harrison of Sacramento, and Michael Page with Keker & Van Nest LLP of San Francisco declined to disclose the settlement terms, saying that the agreement requires that the terms remain confidential. Bikram Yoga's attorney, Susan Hollander with Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP of Palo Alto, Calif. did not return phone calls Friday.
While he clearly has a professional and legal responsibility to uphold the settlement terms, Harrison's confidentially assertions are still ironic in light of his expansive description of his client's legal position and prospects for victory in court while the case was still pending.
OSYU contended that since yoga had been practice for more than 5,000 years there was no way that any practitioner could copyright any yoga position or set of positions because they were all in the public domain.
By taking this position and its name, OSYU was making a claim for the free practice of yoga in the same way that the open source software movement claims the right to freely use software code that has been legally placed in the public domain. But it appears that OSYU is only content to assert these claims for its members that are party to the settlement— not yoga practitioners at large.
Choudhry, a richly successful yoga teacher based in Beverly Hills, Calif., had copyrighted a series of 26 yoga positions that are practiced in studios heated to sweltering temperatures to enhance their physical conditioning effects. He also licensed yoga instructors to teach his Yoga routine in studios around the country, much like the software industry licenses technicians as qualified to maintain application servers or network operating systems.
Some independent instructors who taught variations of Choudhry's routines received demands from his organization that they cease this practice or face the prospect of litigation. These instructors founded OSYU with the expressed purpose of opposing "the litigious position Bikram Choudhry is taking against the Yoga community by his attempted enforcement of copyright protection."
With the settlement, OSYU members have presumably gotten assurances that Choudhry's organization won't sue them for violating its asserted copyrights. But has Choudhry made any promises that it won't press claims of copyright violations against other yoga instructors who aren't party to the settlement? The public and the yoga community at large may never know.
As it stands right now, Choudhry's copyright claims, which looked vulnerable before the settlement, will remain unchallenged by the courts. Unless he has made confidential assurances to OSYU, Choudhry is free to importune other instructors, into paying fees to practice his style of yoga if they aren't in a position to marshal the time and effort to wage a legal challenge as OSYU did.
OSYU's apparently altruistic act of draping itself with the mantel of the open source movement now seems crafty and disingenuous. The true state of matters has emerged and it's just business as usual. The OSYU is just another set of pragmatic business people who cut the best deal they could for themselves. When it was time to reach a settlement, openness was the first casualty.
John Pallatto is a veteran journalist in the field of enterprise software and Internet technology |
|
| |
|
| Yes -- that's the article I quoted from in an earlier post. |
|
| |
Legal Settlement