From the patent angle, you will need to make sure that you are not infringing on a patented swing. That should be pretty easy at present because golfers are not patenting their swings. What Mowzer says about public disclosure probably has something to do with this. However, at least one golfer patented a swing:
I would be more concerned with the right of publicity of the golfers whose swings you are selling. You can't use someone's name for commercial advantage without their permission. (I will leave this thought for another day: Can analysis of a golfer's swing, without reference to their name, be appropriation of their identity if the swing is so unique?)
I am just going to rip this straight out of C.B.C. Distribution v. Major League Baseball, 443 F.Supp.2d 1077 (E.D. Mo., 2006), cleaning up some formatting and removing some citations. This is a good cite because it discusses Supreme Court jurisprudence and the New York origins of the right of publicity doctrine.
The right of publicity is recognized by statute and/or common law in
many states. J. Thomas McCarthy, The Right of Publicity and Privacy §
63 (2d ed.2005). A fairly recent concept, according to the Sixth
Circuit in ETW Corporation v. Jireh Publishing, Inc., 332 F.3d 915,
929 (6th Cir.2003), this right "was first recognized in Haelan
Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum. Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2nd
Cir.1953), where the Second Circuit held that New York's common
law protected a baseball player's right in the publicity value of his
photograph, and, in the process, coined the phrase `right of
publicity' as the name of this right." Subsequently, in Zacchini v.
Broadcasting Company, 433 U.S. 562 (1977), 433 U.S. at 573, where
a performer in a "human cannonball" act sought to recover damages from
a television broadcast of his entire performance, the Supreme Court
recognized that the right of publicity protects the proprietary
interest of an individual to "reap the reward of his endeavors."
The right of publicity is described in Section 46 of the Restatement
(Third) of Unfair Competition (2005), Appropriation of the Commercial
Value of a Person's Identity: The Right of Publicity. This
Restatement provision states that "[o]ne who appropriates the
commercial value of a person's identity by using without consent the
person's name, likeness, or other indicia of identity for purposes of
trade is subject to liability...." Relying on the Restatement, the
Missouri Supreme Court held in TCI, 110 S.W.3d at 369, that "the
elements of a right of publicity action include: (1) That defendant
used plaintiff's name as a symbol of his identity (2) without
consent (3) and with the intent to obtain a commercial advantage."
See also Gionfriddo, 94 Cal.App.4th at 409, 114 Cal. Rptr.2d 307
("The elements of the [tort of the right of publicity], at common law,
are: '(1) the defendant's use of the plaintiff's identity; (2) the
appropriation of plaintiff's name or likeness to defendant's
advantage, commercially or otherwise; (3) lack of consent; and (4)
resulting injury.'") To prove a violation of one's right of
publicity a plaintiff must establish that the defendant commercially
exploited the plaintiff's identity without the plaintiff's consent
to obtain a commercial advantage. Carson v. Here's Johnny Portable
Toilets, Inc., 698 F.2d 831, 835 (6th Cir.1983).