A recent lawsuit between two influencers, Alyssa Sheil and Sydney Nicole Gifford, highlights critical issues of copyrights and likeness rights in the influencer space. Both are known for posting photos that feature a minimalist look focusing on neatness, simplicity, and natural beauty. This has come to be known as the “clean girl” aesthetic, and it has been embraced by numerous celebrities. 

Alyssa Sheil and Sydney Nicole Gifford are both successful influencers known for their minimalist, beige-themed home decor and product recommendations. Gifford has nearly 800,000 followers on social media, while Sheil has roughly half of that following. The influencers met during a joint photo shoot in 2023. Thereafter, the alleged infringement began. 

Gifford has accused Sheil of copying her content, leading to a lawsuit that includes claims of copyright infringement and misappropriation of likeness.

This case could set a precedent for how influencers create, share, and protect their content. 

But can you establish rights in an aesthetic? We may soon find out, depending on whether or how the court overseeing the lawsuit addresses the questions posed below.

Copyright Infringement

Gifford alleges that Sheil copied specific frames in videos, product choices, and camera angels. Gifford submitted nearly 70 pages of side-by-side comparisons of their social media posts to support her claims. Several of these comparisons include photos or videos featuring the influencers in the passenger seat of a car, taken from the front in a high angular view, and walking into the entrance of the same business. 

These materials incorporate the elements of the “clean girl” aesthetic including neutral color clothing and minimalistic backgrounds. 

In order to succeed, Gifford must prove that the content contains original and creative elements that are protectable under copyright law. This may include stylistic choices regarding staging, lighting, and filters included in the materials.

Gifford may face challenges regarding the breadth of protection for the content. Influencer content often involves standard shots and common themes, making it difficult to establish originality. While copyright protection may be afforded for such materials, the scope may be thin, i.e., weak. 

Copyright protection generally does not extend to things like the “look and feel” of a website, individual poses, or camera angles. But an aesthetic is none of these things. 

Is it possible that a combination of neutral toned clothing, distinct poses, selected camera angles, and the overall “look and feel” of an aesthetic may be copyrightable? 

Misappropriation of Likeness

Gifford also claims that Sheil misappropriated her likeness by imitating her appearance, including hairstyles, makeup, and even tattoos, to create a virtually indistinguishable replica of her online persona. This claim is separate and apart from the copyright claim. It extends beyond content to personal identity.

Misappropriation of likeness involves using someone’s identity for commercial gain without permission. Gifford argues that Sheil’s imitation of her look and style has caused confusion among followers and impacted her earnings.

Imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery. But does imitation of clothing, hairstyles, and body modification beget legal culpability?

Potential Industry Impact

Influencers might need to be more cautious about how they create and share content, ensuring that they do not inadvertently infringe on another competitor’s copyrighted work or likeness. A ruling in favor of Gifford could establish broad legal precedents for copyright protection and likeness rights in the influencer industry, potentially leading to more disputes and a reevaluation of current practices.

Conclusion

The outcome of this lawsuit could reshape the influencer landscape. It underscores the need for clearer guidelines and protections for influencers in an industry that is still evolving. As the case unfolds, it will be crucial to watch how the court navigates these complex issues and what implications its decisions will have for the future of influencer marketing.

This case serves as a reminder of the importance of originality and respect for intellectual property in the digital age. Influencers, brands, and legal professionals alike (i.e., us) will be paying close attention to the developments, as the verdict could have far-reaching consequences for the entire industry.