How the Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheill Lawsuit Challenge Existing Copyright Laws for Influencers
At just 24, lifestyle influencer Sydney Gifford built her brand by focusing on authenticity and individuality. However, her world shifted when a follower informed her that another influencer had seemingly stolen her “vibe.” This claim sparked a lawsuit, raising a fascinating question: who truly owns a vibe?
At the heart of the legal battle is Sydney Gifford’s allegation that fellow influencer Alyssa Sheill copied her aesthetic and social media posts. Marketers and legal experts alike are calling this one of the most unusual cases in influencer history.
“If this lawsuit succeeds, it could set a precedent for influencers to treat their branding as intellectual property,” said Adam Wagner, COO at Raindrop Agency. He suggests the case could push influencers to adopt trademarks, copyrights, or patents to protect their creative work. However, proving originality in an industry driven by trends could be a steep challenge.
The current copyright framework offers limited protection for creators, especially in a space as young as influencer marketing. According to U.S. copyright law, a work must be both original and fixed in a tangible medium to qualify for protection. For example, while a photograph can be copyrighted, ideas, concepts, or trends—such as camera angles or poses—are not.
Sydney Gifford, Alyssa Sheill, and their respective influencer agencies did not respond to a request for comment on this story.
The Legal Distinctions at Play
Kristin Grant, Managing Attorney at Grant Attorneys at Law, explained that copyright law doesn’t protect broad concepts like a neutral color palette.
“An influencer cannot stop another from using similar colors. However, the specific, original expression of that idea—such as the resulting images or videos—may be protected,” she said.
Grant is not alone. Ruth Carter, an IP lawyer, noted that trade dress infringement might be the most plausible claim in this case, particularly if Gifford argues that Sheill copied her exact color scheme. Even so, Carter pointed out that no one can monopolize an entire aesthetic.
“Copyright [doesn’t protect] ideas. If it did, it would result in absurd results where only a minute few people would have massive monopolies over other content creators. If someone wants to protect an aesthetic, I recommend they contact an intellectual property (IP) lawyer to identify their IP and their options to protect it,” said Carter.
Inspiration vs. Imitation
The Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheill lawsuit highlights a fundamental tension within the creator economy. On one hand, creators often draw from popular trends, building on shared aesthetics and concepts to connect with audiences. On the other, originality is essential for establishing a unique brand identity and standing out in a crowded market.
“In the creator economy, the line between inspiration and imitation can blur, especially when trending aesthetics dominate social platforms,” said Olivia McNaughten, Senior Director at GRIN.
Daria Belova, Marketing & PR Director at HypeFactory, highlighted the role of trends in social media in the context of the Gifford vs. Sheil lawsuit. Belova noted that many creators, particularly those just starting out, often replicate successful ideas to build their audience. Belova suggested that the lawsuit reflects the natural tension between inspiration and originality in the creator economy.
“In this situation, it’s essential to distinguish between influencers who create trends and those who follow existing mass trends,” said Belova. “This dynamic is unlikely to change—it’s simply how social media operates. It’s the “social media math” behind success in the digital world.”
What’s Next for Influencers?
Though the Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheill lawsuit may cross the thin line between inspiration and duplication, it’s unlikely to redefine copyright law. Instead, it could serve as a reminder of existing principles while reinforcing the challenges of protecting creativity in a trend-driven digital world. As the creator economy evolves, the case serves as a snapshot of the complexities that come with navigating originality in the age of inspiration.
