As a tried-and-true middle child, I’ve been both the accuser and the accused of “copying.” Even when the copyrighted item in question was something I couldn’t really own (like loving one particular musical that shall not be named) because I felt I did it first, it was for me and nobody else. That type of petty sister fight is exactly what’s going on between beefing influencers Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Sheil.
Sydney sued Alyssa for stealing her aesthetic, which can be pretty simply summed up as clean girl 101. But can you actually sue someone for a bitch stole my look moment? Was Sydney’s style even unique enough to copy? These are all the questions I needed to find out when investigating the Sydney Gifford vs. Alyssa Sheil “clean girl” vibes lawsuit.
The Sydney Gifford And Alyssa Sheil Lawsuit, Explained
UPDATE: Sydney Nicole Slone posted why she dropped the lawsuit
Sydney shared on TikTok by expressing how she felt there was “so much more to the story” than suing “over a beige aesthetic,” which became the catchy tagline in the media coverage of her lawsuit, but Syndey “never claimed to own beige” and her lawsuit was not over “a color or a trend.” Sydney called it “shocking and frustrating” watching her content be “stolen,” as she alleges, which was the purpose of her lawsuit, which she has now withdrawn due to the monetary cost of pursuing the case further, according to Sydney.
@sydneynicoleslonefinally telling my story♬ original sound – Sydney Slone
In this video, Sydney lays out her evidence again, but this time to the court of public opinion: Alyssa allegedly blocked Sydney, and only Sydney, on socials after their initial group hang and never got a response as to why (a curious question many inquiring minds are still dying to know). “Seems to me like she didn’t want me to see what she was posting,” Sydney says as she shares more side-by-side screenshots where Alyssa shows off the same captions, exact outfits, and even a doormat that Sydney had already posted prior. Sydney says she has over 100 examples, including a pretty wild piece of evidence: Alyssa’s TikTok landing page did objectively change to become virtually identical to Sydney’s after they met. Sydney also shared she has a drawn tattoo of a flower with a long stem on her inner elbow; she later saw Alyssa reveal a floral tattoo of multiple flowers with long stems in the same position.
Between the similar posts, TikTok landing page, tattoo, and a print clothing collection, Sydney “believes [Alyssa’s] intention was to look so similar to me and copy my posts so similarly that she could profit off my business.” So she’s upset that most outlets (this one included) highlighted the aesthetic at hand rather than what Sydney feels is evidence of “copyright infringement, DMC violations, trademark infringement, misappropriation, and vicarious copyright infringement.”
Sydney notes that for unknown reasons, TikTok had temporarily banned Alyssa’s account. Now, Alyssa’s new account is not as similar to Sydney’s, in Sydney’s opinion, so in that way, she’s won something. Still, many commenters wrote messages of support to Sydney like “It’s the fact that she’s doing it too,” and “When you showed the tattoo, I s c r e a m e d.” “This is beyond copying. This is obsession,” was one user’s opinion.
Alyssa Sheil’s Response To Sydney’s Latest Post
@alyssasheillthe actual truth.♬ original sound – alyssa sheil
Days later, Alyssa had a response in a video titled “The actual truth,” which set the tone that she still has a very different view from Sydney on their content. Alyssa says Sydney’s “false narrative” resulted in her and her loved ones getting “insane amounts of hate.” Alyssa tells her followers the lawsuit ended “in her favor” (the court did not make a ruling; Sydney dropped the suit). Still, Alyssa says, “there was never a case to begin with,” with her main evidence being that her “entire Amazon order history” showed that Alyssa had ordered some items, though she doesn’t clarify how many, “weeks if not months before Sydney ever posted.”
Alyssa feels “targeted” because many creators post similar Amazon content in this trendy style, but only she got sued. “This has been the hardest year and a half” of Alyssa’s life, she shared, but she thinks this “meritless lawsuit” going away was a win for herself and all of TikTok. Some of her comment section disagreed that Sydney “made something out of nothing,” though. One person wrote, “I don’t think you can really claim it as ‘winning’ the case, but you are really pretty.” That’s nice! Others applauded Alyssa for standing up for her “content, style, and look.”
Why is Sydney suing Alyssa?
Sydney Gifford, who posts under the handle @sydneynicoleslone on TikTok, where she has over 6ooK followers, sued @alyssasheill for copying her aesthetic on social media. Sydney copyrighted several of her social media posts in January after noticing the similarity between the two’s content, according to the New York Times.
Sydney believes Alyssa altered not only what she wears and thus promotes online but also her literal image, from her hair color to her body language, to make herself look just like Sydney (so much so that Sydney claims fans scrolling on TikTok have been getting the two confused). This confusion has allegedly been drawing clicks away from Sydney’s page, which she uses as her livelihood through sharing linked products, mostly on her Amazon storefront, therefore negatively impacting Sydney’s spon con business.
Who copied who?
Did Alyssa copy Sydney? It’s hard to say. The lawsuit includes compelling side-by-side evidence that Sydney used to point out times when Alyssa promoted the same clothing and home goods in a strikingly similar visual style to videos Sydney had already shared. She argues that the two were casual online mutuals who met up and tried to strike a friendship. But after Alyssa fell off the map post-meet-up, Sydney interpreted that Alyssa had maliciously formed a plan to copy her down to her hair color (which did change) and then started excessively posting the allegedly copied content.
The gray area arises when you consider that the clothing items are things like off-white sweaters, the furniture is a handful of beige WFH classics, and the copied hair color is dark brown. Did Alyssa really copy Sydney, or did she just run with the basic bitch (sorry, ladies!!) clean vibe of the moment, like many others? That’s what the court is trying to figure out. The New York Times originally reported that Sydney’s copyright argument was strong enough to take this whole little clean girl mess to court.
View this post on Instagram
View this post on Instagram
Can you copyright an internet trend?
Can anyone truly copyright an internet trend? Just ask Jules about her “demure, mindful” trademark battle. If you put something viral out into the world, you can only do so much to stop how it evolves into a pop culture moment. Unlike the pre-21st century, being a main character on the internet can now come with a hefty dollar sign. People who pop off in the comments have had their words cemented in internet history, and yet they’re not always being compensated for it.
Take Keke Palmer’s podcast, for example. The podcast name, Baby This Is Keke Palmer, comes from viral internet lore where Twitter user @Trixienumba9 made a crude (read: hilarious) joke with a picture of Keke Palmer as the punchline. When someone responded, telling her to take the tweet down because it exploited a photo of their sister who was murdered (???) Trixie corrected the person, famously writing, “Baby, this is Keke Palmer” in response. Years later, Keke referenced the iconic meme more than once and later turned it into podcast inspo.
Did Trixienumab9 catch a bag for her creativity? Not to the public’s knowledge, and to be fair, a picture of Keke Palmer was the origin of the joke in the first place. As with most art (yes, internet memes and podcasts fall under the umbrella of art, especially as it pertains to the law), multiple sources of influence come together in everyone’s work literally all the time. There’s a thin line between taking inspiration and stealing someone’s IP, but one surefire way to try to avoid a lawsuit is to give credit where possible, like with Olivia Rodrigo’s music mishap. This influencer case, if it had gone in Sydney’s favor, could’ve made waves on the much newer frontier of online influence.
Even with “demure” trademarked for merch, it still was used in every retailer worth their salt’s online ad campaigns for months (and not to mention, it appeared about 1,000 times on Betches.com). A trend can’t have an impact without us, the mainstream, soaking it up and pushing it further downstream with additive interpretations. Creators need followers to freak out. Otherwise, they won’t have their main character moment. So there’s a lot to be said for “sharing is caring” energy being mutually beneficial, not only between a creator and the audience but also between creators themselves, as they amplify and build on each other’s ideas. But as big dollar amounts enter the equation more frequently, there does now seem to be a need for much firmer legal guidance over who owns what and to what extent.
