I can’t be the only one who gets déjà vu when I scroll through social media. It feels like video after video is the same content, with the same general editing styles, and following the same trends. It’s easy to assume that copyright infringement, which occurs when someone unauthorizedly reproduces, distributes, or displays someone else’s creative work, would apply to this repetition of popular aesthetics and trends by influencers.
Influencer Sydney Slone (formerly Sydney Gifford) took this curiosity to court, suing another influencer, Alyssa Sheil, for direct copyright infringement (among other claims) in 2024 (@SydneySlone and @alyssasheill on TikTok and Instagram). This lawsuit became known as the “Sad Beige Lawsuit” because of Slone’s aesthetic. While Slone ultimately dropped the lawsuit, she claimed Sheil’s content copied her neutral, beige, and cream aesthetic and the details of her content. This legal dispute highlights important intellectual property (IP) lessons for content creators. It also raises an important legal question: When can copyright law protect influencers’ content and aesthetics? The answer to this question lies at the heart of copyright law: creators can own their original expressions, but they can’t own trends, formats, or “vibes.” Below, we’ll dig into what copyright law actually covers, why content and aesthetics can be a blurry line, and what the “Sad Beige Lawsuit” reveals about creativity online. Read on to find out more!
The Basics of Copyright Protection – Expression vs. Idea
Under copyright law, copyright protection is afforded to original works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium with minimal creativity. Works of authorship include literary, musical, pictorial, and motion picture works. Popular book series, famous movies, albums, and even famous comic book art are examples of works of authorship.
Let’s break down each of these requirements, starting with minimal creativity. Minimal creativity really just means that the work has some aspect of original choice or expression. After all, creativity can mean different things to everyone, so this is a relatively low bar to meet. All creative works start with an idea, but for copyright protection, the idea must be fixed in a tangible medium. This means that it is no longer just an idea in someone’s head, but it is put somewhere real and concrete! Think about how artists paint on a physical canvas, or in this case, a vision coming together in a photo or video.
Authors who have copyright protection are awarded specific, exclusive rights. These rights include the right to reproduce, make a derivative work (adapting, changing or building on another creative work), distribute the work to the public, and the right to publicly display or perform the work. A third-party violating even one of these rights risks liability for copyright infringement.
Although it seems like a low standard to receive copyright protection, there are limitations. Copyrights do not protect ideas, concepts, or processes – even those meeting the minimal creativity standard. Instead, copyright law protects the expression of ideas or concepts! This includes the words, images, and creative choices that help bring a trend to life.
The “Sad Beige Lawsuit” is a great example of this distinction. Slone regularly posted mirror pictures of what she was wearing that day (an “outfit of the day” aka an “ootd”). Taking a selfie in a mirror is considered a content idea; anyone can post a mirror selfie of their outfit! What turns an idea into an expression is the specifics involving how each individual mirror selfie is composed and taken. In one post, Slone posed in the mirror, with one leg popped, in front of a beige door, white wall, and white curtains. She used the phone (camera) to cover her face to showcase a beige matching sweater set.
The copyrightable expressive elements of the photo are the way Slone chose to express her version of a mirror selfie. Each element required a decision she had to make on her own, with minimal creativity, to turn her idea into an actual copyrightable post. The distinction between an idea and its expression is a crucial one in copyright law.
Because copyright grants creators exclusive rights, it can sometimes seem as though one person can protect an entire style or concept. In reality, the heart of copyright protection is to encourage and protect creativity, not to prevent individuals from acting on their own ideas or engaging in their own creative expression through shared trends.
Devil in the Details – The Line Between Ideas vs. Expressions
So, how does this really explain how following social media trends and aesthetics is legal under copyright law? An aesthetic is a consistent visual style or mood. A trend is a popular idea, content, or format that many people follow. In the social media space, trends and aesthetics serve as creative frameworks that content creators build on, such as video concepts, formats, or themes. In this way, trends and aesthetics act as uncopyrightable ideas (like the idea of a mirror selfie), therefore free for any creator to partake in!
Thousands of creators participate in trends because each video reflects a creator’s personal expression of a trend (think different creative takes or editing). For example, two influencers can both post a “day in my life” video. One may use close-up shots with handwritten captions and calming music. The other may use voice-over narration, on-screen text, and fast-paced cuts. Basically, copyright law can protect the choices influencers make when following trends. The different camera angles or frames, narration styles, music, editing styles, or personal anecdotes are creative choices that make the post original.
However, copying trends can cross the line into copyright infringement when the copying stops being a creative expression of a trend and instead becomes substantially similar to another’s content. Determining substantial similarity involves comparing the actual copyrightable material of the original work to a similar, copied work. In other words, content that merely follows the same trend (or video idea) used by another creator would likely not be substantially similar in the copyrightable elements. Why? Because substantial similarity does not depend on the similarity of ideas or trends, it instead looks to the similarity of specific, concrete, creative choices – the expression that makes the post original. So, copying an author’s creative choices, like the exact narration word-for-word or exact footage, could make the works substantially similar in copyrightable material and thus lead to copyright infringement. This is no longer a concern about the copying of ideas, but the copying of someone’s exact expression of that particular idea.
Sad Beige or Stolen Beige?
Circling back to the “Sad Beige Lawsuit,” the original complaint showcases how the devil lives in the details. Slone claimed she had exclusive copyright rights over the photos, videos, text captions, and in-video texts that she posted on her social media account, and that Sheil infringed on those rights. The elements showing her creative expression of an idea are eligible for copyright protection. For example, Slone took the photos and videos at specific angles, styled herself, and chose the text and font of the captions. These small details require minimal creativity, are fixed to the uploaded medium (either a photo, story, or video), and are therefore copyrightable with Slone as the author. Her copyright infringement claim was not about Sheil simply having the same “sad beige” aesthetic. Instead, it was about how Sheil violated the ownership of her specific, creative details that made Slone’s content her own.
However, whether Sheil’s conduct constituted direct copyright infringement can be boiled down to two questions: which elements, if any, are protected by copyright, and were those protected elements copied in a substantially similar way?
As mentioned above, Slone’s protectable elements (claimed copyright ownership) have to do with her expression through editing her content. However, much of what Slone pointed to as infringing posts by Sheil were outside the scope of what she claimed ownership of. (Take a look at pages 6-13 of the complaint to see the content in question here). For example, Slone alleged that infringing content by Sheil focused on similar neutral beige colors, similar product categories (such as kitchen or organizational products), an overall clean tone, and post formats (e.g., picture slideshows or videos rather than a single image). These elements would likely be seen by a court as mere ideas, styles, and formats, not copyrightable elements. They provide the basic structure, or starting point, for a post. They do not necessarily dictate the final creative outcome of the content. Anyone can follow the same color palettes, showcase similar products or clothing, or post a photo slideshow instead of a single picture. The real issue is not whether the content had a shared style, but whether Slone’s protected expression was used in Sheil’s posts.
Things get tricky when determining whether the specific elements Slone claimed ownership of were copied in a substantially similar way. Slone alleged that Sheil copied multiple different posts, as well as her Amazon Storefront webpage and personal bio website. Each post, whether on Instagram, TikTok, Amazon Storefront, or a personal website, is an individual infringement claim. There is no doubt that the posts look similar in “vibe.” However, determining whether they are substantially similar in the actual copyrightable elements requires really getting into the weeds.
For example, Slone posted a slideshow on TikTok (see pages 8-9 of the complaint) with the text caption on the first photo reading, “my best Amazon home purchases of 2023,” with a row of beige emojis above the text. The remaining images in the slideshow depicted various neutral-colored products. Sheil also posted a TikTok slideshow with the same caption but using different emojis than Slone’s post. Additionally, although many of the products were the same, the images were taken from very different angles. For example, one of the images was of a desk setup (see the desk images in the image collection on pages 8-9 here). Slone’s desk setup featured a puffy white chair, a beige desk, and accessories, captured from a downward-facing camera angle. Sheil also included an image of her desk set up. However, her image showed the wall and wall art, a different chair, and the photo was taken straight on rather than at a downward angle.
Whether this post would be considered substantially similar enough to a court is hard to tell. The captions use different emojis, and the pictures are clearly taken from different angles. While some products are similar, a lot of them only look similar because they are… well…beige. The ultimate question is whether Sheil really copied the expressive elements of Slone’s post. Or whether the posts just looked alike because they were built off the same ideas, styles, and color palettes.
It is more likely that if Sheil had copied Slone’s posts in their entirety, it would have constituted copyright infringement. If Sheil had copied the angles of the pictures, the organization of each picture, and the setup and angling of the products, she would more likely have crossed the line into copyright infringement. But this wasn’t the case.
This question clearly weighed heavily on both Sheil and Slone, as they decided to end the case through a joint dismissal with prejudice. This means that both sides agreed, without a judge’s decision, to end the case after a private resolution, promised not to refile, and ultimately move on.
Despite not having a clear outcome, this situation still offers a great illustration and case study of the line copyright draws between what is an idea that anyone can use versus protectable expressions! The small details social media influencers add or change are what really make their content their own. Influencers put creative effort into content to follow a trend or aesthetic. Therefore, it makes sense that they would want to protect it. However, it’s important for influencers to understand the difference between just hopping on a trend and copying too much creative detail!
Free Vibes – Not Details!
All in all, even though influencer content can feel repetitive, copyright law helps draw a distinction on what can be protected. Online trends, aesthetics, content ideas, and overall “vibes” belong to everyone, as long as they don’t cross the line! Next time you scroll and notice repetitive content, pay attention to how the expression differs in seemingly similar posts. You may pick up on some pretty significant differences when it comes to the little things!
Isa Diaz
Associate Blogger
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, J.D. 2027