In April 2024, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford filed a lawsuit against fellow influencer Alyssa Sheil in Texas federal court, alleging copyright infringement and trade dress infringement. This case, which has been dubbed as the “vibes case” because of its focus on the neutral aesthetic prominent in both influencers’ content, raises novel questions about the boundaries of intellectual property rights in the digital age. If you are an influencer with questions about how to protect your brand, an experienced entertainment attorney can help you navigate these issues.
Key Claims in the Case
- Copyright Infringement: Gifford accuses Sheil of copying photos and videos that Gifford registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Gifford’s complaint includes side-by-side comparisons, alleging that Sheil’s posts mirror Gifford’s use of specific settings, angles, and styling. For instance, Gifford posted a video featuring a visit to a specific store, followed by a strikingly similar video from Sheil two weeks later. Gifford’s copyright registration strengthens her position, allowing her to seek statutory damages if infringement is proven, among other benefits.
- Trade Dress Infringement: Gifford also claims her distinctive “neutral-beige aesthetic” and minimalist product styling constitute protectable trade dress. While trade dress typically applies to physical products or packaging (for a famous example, the Coca Cola bottle), Gifford argues that her social media aesthetic serves as a source identifier for her brand and Sheil’s imitation has led to confusion among her followers. Gifford additionally alleges Sheil has made posts about certain items that are similar to Gifford’s posts showcasing those same items, which Gifford spent considerable time curating, resulting in a dip in sales on those products from her Amazon storefront. This is a novel extension of trade dress law, which courts have previously applied to elements like restaurant interiors (think McDonalds) and website design (Google’s home page, for one example). Success on this claim would require Gifford to demonstrate that her beige aesthetic has acquired secondary meaning, a legal standard that means consumers associate it with her brand.
Challenges and Implications
Sheil moved to dismiss Gifford’s complaint in June 2024. In November 2024, the Judge partially granted (and partially denied) Sheil’s motion, meaning that the case will continue. The Judge noted that this lawsuit “appears to be the first of its kind—one in which a social media influencer accuses another influencer of (among other things) copyright infringement based on the similarities between their posts that promote the same products.”
The case faces hurdles as copyright law protects specific expressions, not ideas, styles, or “vibes.” Similarly, trade dress claims must prove distinctiveness and consumer recognition. Critics argue that many influencers adopt similar aesthetics, making it difficult to attribute originality to Gifford’s content. However, if the court finds merit in her claims, this could establish a precedent for influencers to protect their “visual brands.”
This lawsuit could reshape how intellectual property laws apply to digital content and social media. Businesses and creators should watch closely, as a ruling favoring Gifford might complicate content creation and marketing strategies across platforms. On the other hand, a ruling for Gifford would also provide significantly more protection to influencers’ personal brands – like the beige aesthetic at issue in this case.
Conclusion
For influencers, creators, and others in the digital marketplace, this case underscores the importance of registering copyrights and establishing distinct brand elements. While the court process is still ongoing, the outcome may redefine the interplay between copyright, trade dress, and digital culture. For further guidance on these issues, reach out to a member of our team for next steps.
