It started as a Joan Rivers’ shtick on Fashion Police, but it’s now the basis for a lawsuit in the Western District of Texas between “influencer” Sydney Nicole Gifford and “content creator” Alyssa Sheil.

In the lawsuit filed in April, Gifford — who has over 790,000 followers across Instagram and TikTok — claimed “at least” 30 photo posts across Sheil’s platforms featured “identical styling, tone, camera angle and/or text” to her images.

Gifford also claimed that Sheil — who has 380,000 social media followers — posted “nearly identical videos” to her content.

So much for imitation being the sincerest form of flattery.

In her lawsuit, Gifford provided multiple examples of Sheil’s posts that she argues are similar to her own and shared screenshots of the supposedly incriminating photos and videos.

One example shows Sheil wearing an identical outfit and roughly the same background color that Gifford used in one of her videos. Gifford argues that this is copyright infringement.

There was a time, apparently, when the two young women were friendly, or at least friendly enough to meet for the purpose of supporting each other’s “influencer” businesses.

In her lawsuit, Gifford claims that she met Sheil in Austin in December 2022 “with the intent of supporting one another’s business,”

But following a joint photoshoot in January 2023, Sheil blocked Gifford online and it was then that the influencer began to copy her content.

According to court documents, Sheil began to publish posts that featured the same or similar Amazon products Gifford promoted and use styling and captions that also appeared to replicate her.

Based upon the images included in the complaint, it would appear that Shiel shamelessly copied Gifford’s “aesthetic.” Moving to dismiss the suit, Sheil claimed the aesthetic as her own.

In August, Sheil asked the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to dismiss Gifford’s lawsuit.

Sheil claimed that her photos embraced the “clean girl” aesthetic, a style characterized by a polished, minimalist look with an emphasis on neutral colors, and cited celebrities such as Hailey Bieber as an influence.

Can anyone own the “clean girl” aesethetic?

“Anyone who googled that phrase or spent a few hours on TikTok or Instagram would quickly realize that it destroys Gifford’s case; her ‘look’ is not original.

“For that matter, on that front, neither is Sheil’s.”

Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell, apparently, concluded that there was sufficient merit to Gifford’s claim to deny Sheil’s §12(b)(6) motion and allow the case to proceed. And based upon the images in the complaint, there is little question but that Sheil’s and Gifford’s looks are, well, similar. But so what?

Gifford’s case could set a legal precedent for how copyright protections work in the content creation industry. The case could lead to a deluge of similar suits from influencers.

According to a report in Business Insider, while many influencers have complained that other creators are stealing their ideas for content or uploading photos and videos in a similar style to their own, this appears to be the first time an individual has taken legal action.

Initially, the problem arises from the concept that online “influencer” is a thing to begin with. It certainly earns these “content creators” a shocking amount of money, explaining what they have to complain about, but can someone own a look, an aesthetic, given that the very nature of their influence is to adopt it as their own? Is no one else allowed to wear beige and gray? Can no other influencer use minimal backgrounds?

This case may be somewhat unique in that the images used by Sheil so closely replicate Gifford as to provide some very strong evidence that the former wasn’t merely influence by the latter, but outright copied her and obtained compensation from her “outright replication.” But is a “look” copyrightable in the first place? Is this really “content” that can be owned to the exclusion of those being “influenced” by someone whose occupation is “influencer”?

It seems fairly clear that Sheil “stole” Gifford’s look, and by doing so siphoned off some of the profits Gifford would have made from selling Amazon goods, but does this give rise to a cause of action?