In Part 1 of this post, we looked at what ownership actually means for yoga teachers – why it surfaces only after something has acquired value, how ownership differs from authorship, and why permission and ownership are not the same thing. In Part 2, we turn to the practical questions – of how ownership is gained, lost, or transferred across the specific content types that matter most to yoga teachers.
Workshop manuals and training materials
Teacher trainings and the materials that support them – manuals, curricula, frameworks, assessment tools – represent the highest long-term value for many yoga teachers. They are also the assets most vulnerable to loss of control, because their development often involves collaboration with studios and other teachers or working partners, as well as potentially complex commercial arrangements.
Trainings typically emerge from partnerships: between teachers and studios, between co-teachers with complementary expertise, or between teachers and commercial partners who provide infrastructure and marketing support. At the outset, the focus is on programme delivery and marketing. Ownership questions may feel secondary, and raising them may seem premature. Questions about ownership and monetary claims tend to surface later, often when relationships end, partnerships dissolve, or strategic directions diverge.
The legal distinction between assignment and licensing is critical here. Assignment involves a permanent transfer of ownership – once intellectual property is assigned, the original creator no longer retains rights to use, modify, or benefit from the work. Licensing permits use whilst retaining ownership, and can be exclusive or non-exclusive, time-limited or perpetual, revocable or irrevocable. These distinctions have profound practical consequences, but they are rarely discussed when training programmes are being developed.
Teacher trainings carry particular weight because they compound over time. Each cohort of graduates carries forward the methods, cueing language, ethos and lineage associated with the training. If a teacher loses control over the programme, she loses not just immediate income but influence over how her approach is packaged into a product offering and taught/conveyed.
Clarity about ownership of training materials is best established before the first cohort enrols. Key questions to resolve include:
- Who owns the written materials?
- Who owns the programme name and branding?
- May either party use those materials independently if the partnership ends?
These questions need not lead to complex legal agreements, but they should be discussed, agreed upon, and documented in writing.
Recordings and online content
Digital content introduces ownership rights risks that are more difficult to manage than those associated with in-person teaching. Recordings, livestreams, and other forms of online content, by virtue of the pervasiveness and permanence of online digital footprints, tend to outlive the professional relationships that produced them.
Studios commonly record classes for multiple purposes – internal training, marketing materials, content for online platforms, or documentation for insurance purposes. Teachers often consent to these recordings as a matter of courtesy or in the course of their employment or engagement, without fully considering the implications for future use. Further, the consent given is typically of a general nature (rather than specific or limited). The consent may not contemplate the studio continuing to monetise the content after the teacher has left, or the content being licensed to third-party platforms.
Once content is captured, it can be reused, repackaged, edited, or redistributed in contexts far removed from its original purpose. A class recorded for promotional use may become a standalone commercial product. A livestream archived for convenience may become part of a permanent on-demand library generating subscription revenue.
Teachers entering into arrangements involving digital content should consider and specify in writing the permissible uses, the duration of those permissions, whether the studio retains rights after the relationship ends, and how the teacher’s name and image may be used in connection with the content.
Photos, branding, and your professional identity
A teacher’s name, image, and broader professional identity function as commercial assets, though they are often undervalued until their misuse generates tangible problems.
A common misconception is that being the subject of a photograph confers control over its use. Under Singapore’s Copyright Act, the photographer – not the subject – is typically the first owner of copyright in the photograph, unless ownership was explicitly transferred by contract. Being photographed does not, in itself, grant any rights over the resulting image. Similarly, paying for a professional photoshoot does not automatically transfer ownership of the images – payment compensates the photographer for their time and expertise, not for the copyright itself, unless the contract states otherwise.
Studios routinely use teachers’ names and photographs in marketing materials, and this usage typically expands over time without explicit re-consent. A photograph taken for a single workshop promotion can subsequently appear across websites, social media platforms, paid advertisements, and third-party booking platforms – sometimes years after the professional relationship has ended. Once an image enters online circulation, practical control becomes extremely limited.
The reputational dimension is equally important. Continued association with a studio after departure can create confusion about a teacher’s current focus and availability, dilute personal branding efforts, or imply ongoing endorsement of a studio’s standards and direction. If the studio’s reputation later takes a hit for other reasons, the teacher may experience reputational harm by association.
Before agreeing to be photographed, it is good practice for the parties to clarify in writing who will own the copyright in the resulting images, what specific uses are permitted, and what happens upon termination of the professional relationship.
Ownership clauses in studio contracts
Many studio contracts contain provisions, buried within the contract and written in language that feels abstract, that assigns ownership of class sequences, training materials, workshop content, or recorded sessions created by the teacher to the studio. Also, most studio contracts do not use the word “assignment” explicitly. They use softer-sounding language: “materials created in connection with studio work shall be the property of the studio”.
Some clauses may also grant the studio ongoing rights to use a teacher’s image in marketing materials indefinitely.
In both cases, the effect is the same – the studio gains control, the teacher loses it.
While the distinction between assignment and licence (see above) is relevant here, the practical question in layman’s terms is simpler: what control are you giving up, and for how long?
The safest approach is to clarify ownership before signing. Does the contract assign ownership of materials you create? Does it grant the studio perpetual rights to use your name and image? If the answers are unclear, ask. If the terms feel too broad, negotiate. If the studio refuses to adjust and you are uncomfortable with the implications, consider whether signing serves your long-term interests.
This post is part of an ongoing series on legal resources for yoga teachers in Singapore. A comprehensive toolkit covering this topic and more is coming soon!
The information in this article is for general educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal advice. Laws and regulations may change, and the information provided may not reflect the most current legal developments. For advice specific to your circumstances, please consult a qualified lawyer. No solicitor-client relationship is created by reading this content.