The Influencer Lawsuit That Could Change Social Media Forever: A Look at Gifford v. Sheil

Sep 27

The influencer industry is booming, with creators on platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube shaping modern culture and marketing. For influencers, their social media presence is more than just a pastime—it’s a business. From carefully curated aesthetics to branded partnerships, their content is their livelihood. But what happens when someone copies your entire aesthetic and starts benefiting from it? Can you protect the way your posts look and feel?

This is exactly the question being raised in a groundbreaking case that could reshape how influencers protect their content: Gifford v. Sheil, a lawsuit involving copyright infringement and trade dress claims. Sydney Nicole Gifford, a popular influencer, has taken legal action against fellow influencer Alyssa Sheil, accusing her of copying her distinct neutral-toned aesthetic on social media. The outcome of this case could set a precedent for the entire influencer industry.

In this post, we’ll break down the key aspects of the case, the legal claims involved, and what this could mean for influencers looking to protect their content.

The Background: What Happened Between Gifford and Sheil?

To understand the case, let’s start with the background. Sydney Nicole Gifford, a social media influencer with over 500,000 TikTok followers and 230,000 on Instagram, is known for her clean, neutral aesthetic. Her style centers around a monochrome palette of cream, beige, and grey, which she uses to promote products ranging from household goods to apparel. Gifford has built her personal brand over years, carefully curating a distinct visual identity that resonates with her audience.

In 2023, Gifford collaborated on a joint photoshoot with another Texas-based influencer, Alyssa Sheil, who has a smaller following of around 270,000 TikTok followers and 108,000 Instagram followers. According to Gifford, shortly after their collaboration, Sheil blocked her on Instagram and TikTok. What followed was a series of posts from Sheil that Gifford alleges were direct copies of her own content.

From nearly identical outfits and poses to similar product recommendations, Gifford claims Sheil replicated her aesthetic down to the smallest details. In one instance, Gifford points to a TikTok video in which Sheil showcased her top Amazon home finds for the year—a concept strikingly similar to a video Gifford had shared, featuring almost the exact same products and styling.

Gifford sent cease and desist letters to Sheil, which were ignored. Social media platforms, however, did take down some of Sheil’s posts following Gifford’s complaints. When the alleged mimicry continued, Gifford escalated the situation, filing a lawsuit in federal court, accusing Sheil of copyright infringement and trade dress infringement.

The Legal Claims: Copyright Infringement and Trade Dress Infringement

Gifford’s lawsuit includes eight claims, but the most significant are copyright infringement and trade dress infringement. These two legal principles are relatively new when applied to the social media world, which is why this case is catching the attention of influencers and IP lawyers alike.

Copyright Infringement

Copyright law protects original works of authorship, including visual art, photographs, and videos. For Gifford, her claim of copyright infringement centers on the idea that Sheil copied not just the content of her posts, but the overall composition of her photographs and videos.

Gifford has registered at least 140 photos and 18 videos with the US Copyright Office, which gives her a legal basis to file a copyright infringement lawsuit. These registrations allow her to argue that her original content has been unlawfully copied by Sheil. Copyright infringement in this case means that Gifford believes Sheil replicated enough of her original photos and videos that a court could find substantial similarity between the two influencers’ work.

But copyright law can be tricky when it comes to social media content. Photos of products, for instance, may only have “thin” protection under copyright law, because they involve common elements like color schemes, poses, and products that many influencers use. For example, it’s one thing to say Sheil copied Gifford’s specific product shots, but another to claim copyright over the idea of posting Amazon finds in a neutral color palette.

As several intellectual property lawyers have noted, proving copyright infringement in this case could be difficult since many of the elements in Gifford’s posts—like the products and the settings—are not inherently unique or original. This is where trade dress comes into play.

Trade Dress Infringement

While copyright law protects the content itself, trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a brand. Traditionally, trade dress applies to the non-functional aspects of a product, like the design of packaging or the appearance of a store, that have acquired secondary meaning—meaning that consumers associate the look with a particular source or brand.

In her lawsuit, Gifford argues that her neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic has become part of her brand identity and that Sheil’s copying of this aesthetic infringes on her trade dress. According to the complaint, Gifford’s trade dress includes the promotion of products within a specific color scheme, styled in modern minimal backdrops, and featuring Gifford herself in a distinctive, relatable way.

The key question here is whether Gifford’s aesthetic is distinctive enough to be protectable under trade dress law. Courts have extended trade dress protection to intangible elements, such as a restaurant’s decor or even a website’s design, but applying this to social media content is novel.

Several legal experts are skeptical about whether Gifford’s trade dress claim will hold up in court. For trade dress to be valid, the aesthetic must have acquired a secondary meaning in the minds of consumers—meaning that people recognize the aesthetic as being uniquely Gifford’s. With many influencers using similar minimalistic aesthetics, proving that Gifford’s style is uniquely tied to her could be difficult.

As James Sammataro, a partner at Pryor Cashman LLP, pointed out: “It’s almost like saying because I have this well-known color scheme, I’m the only person in the world who can use it. Seems like a bridge too far.”

Why This Case Matters to Influencers

This lawsuit is about more than just two influencers battling it out over a similar Instagram feed—it’s about the future of content protection in the influencer industry. If Gifford wins, it could open the floodgates for more influencers to file similar claims to protect their aesthetics and content.

In a crowded social media space where creators often mimic each other’s styles, this case could set a precedent for what’s allowed and what crosses the line. Danielle Garno, a partner at Holland & Knight, mentioned that while similarities between influencers are common, the sheer number of examples in Gifford’s complaint suggests that Sheil went beyond mere inspiration.

This case is significant for influencers because it raises important questions about ownership and creativity in a digital world where trends spread rapidly, and ideas are often imitated. If influencers can prove that their aesthetic is protectable under trade dress law, it could mean more control over how their brand identity is used and copied by others. On the flip side, it could lead to a wave of litigation as creators scramble to protect their look and feel on social media.

But there’s also a downside to Gifford’s potential victory. Mark Lerner, a partner at Duane Morris LLP, argues that the “floodgates” effect could make it harder for influencers to navigate the space, as many share similar aesthetics or work with the same brands. In an industry where collaboration and inspiration are part of the culture, an increase in lawsuits could create a more competitive and litigious environment.

Can You Copyright an Aesthetic?

One of the most interesting questions raised by this lawsuit is whether an aesthetic can be copyrighted or protected by trade dress law. Alyssa Sheil’s legal team has pushed back hard against the idea that Gifford’s aesthetic is protectable, arguing that neutral, beige, and cream tones are hardly unique in the influencer world.

Sheil’s defense claims that her work is independently developed and that her posts are inspired by broader trends in the influencer community, like the “clean girl aesthetic,” which is popular among influencers and public figures such as Hailey Bieber.

Her lawyers argue that “neutral colors have been in for some time,” and point to examples like Chip and Joanna Gaines’ HGTV program as evidence that Gifford’s aesthetic is not original. This defense highlights an important point: many influencers use similar color schemes, themes, and types of content, which raises the question of where inspiration ends and infringement begins.

The Potential Impact of a Gifford Victory

If Gifford wins, this case could have far-reaching implications. Influencers who have worked hard to build a recognizable brand would have a stronger legal basis to protect their content from imitators. Copyright and trade dress laws could evolve to accommodate the unique challenges of social media content, offering influencers more tools to safeguard their creative work.

A ruling in favor of Gifford could also signal to influencers that aesthetics are no longer just a creative choice—they’re a business asset worth protecting. This could lead to more creators investing in copyrighting their work and pursuing legal action when they feel their content is being copied.

On the other hand, a Gifford victory could lead to unintended consequences. If influencers begin claiming ownership over commonly used styles, colors, and formats, it could stifle creativity and collaboration in the space. More lawsuits could follow, and influencers might hesitate to post certain content for fear of being accused of infringement.

What Happens Next?

As of now, Alyssa Sheil has filed a partial motion to dismiss six of the eight claims in the lawsuit, but the claims for copyright infringement and trade dress infringement remain. If the case moves forward and goes to trial, it could become a landmark case for the influencer industry.

Most cases like this end in settlement before reaching a trial, but the potential for this case to set a precedent makes it one to watch closely. As the influencer economy grows, the law is still catching up to the unique challenges posed by digital content creation, and this case could help shape those laws moving forward.

Conclusion: A Case to Watch for Every Influencer

The Gifford v. Sheil lawsuit is about more than just two influencers battling over a similar Instagram aesthetic—it’s about the future of intellectual property law in the influencer space. If Gifford succeeds, it could mean new legal protections for influencers looking to safeguard their content. But it also raises questions about creativity, inspiration, and ownership in an industry built on trends and shared ideas.

As the influencer economy continues to expand, understanding your legal rights as a creator is more important than ever. This case could change how influencers think about protecting their brand, and it’s definitely one to keep an eye on.

Pablo Segarra