Today, Explained: “Beige, Don't Kill My Vibe” Summary

Episode Release Date: January 10, 2025
Hosts: Sean Rameswaram and Noel King
Network: Vox Media Podcast Network

Introduction

In the January 10, 2025 episode of Today, Explained, Vox delves into the intriguing legal battle between two prominent Amazon influencers, Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Scheel. Titled “Beige, Don't Kill My Vibe,” the episode explores allegations of aesthetic and content copying within the influencer community, examining the broader implications for social media creators and intellectual property law.

Setting the Scene: The Influencers and Their Aesthetic

The episode begins with Noel King introducing the central figures of the lawsuit:

• Sydney Gifford: A 24-year-old influencer from near Minneapolis, Minnesota, Sydney has amassed hundreds of thousands of followers on Instagram and TikTok. Her content primarily focuses on Amazon product recommendations, particularly for winter wardrobes, earning her a substantial income through Amazon’s influencer program. Sydney’s aesthetic is described as “beige, serene, and a little basic on purpose,” encapsulating the popular “clean girl” vibe.

  Noel King [00:25]: "Their aesthetic is beige, it's serene, it's a little basic on purpose..."

• Alyssa Scheel: Another Amazon influencer residing in Austin, Texas, Alyssa has been accused by Sydney of copying her aesthetic and content strategies. Alyssa’s style mirrors Sydney’s, featuring similar color palettes, product selections, and overall presentation, leading to confusion among their followers.

  Alex Roberts [04:02]: “…the aesthetic that has come to be known online as, quote, unquote, clean girl.”

The Allegations: Copying Vibes and Content

Sydney Gifford initiated legal action against Alyssa Scheel, claiming that Alyssa has systematically copied her unique aesthetic and content approach. The allegations are multifaceted:

1. Content Replication: Sydney asserts that Alyssa has been duplicating her video formats, photo styles, pacing, and editing techniques. This includes promoting identical Amazon products through similar affiliate links, thereby directly impacting Sydney’s earnings.

   Alex Roberts [04:02]: “Sydney says that Alyssa is copying her vibe. Basically, that's what it really boils down to.”

2. Aesthetic Duplication: Beyond content, Sydney accuses Alyssa of emulating her personal style and overall look, leading to follower confusion and a potential diversion of Sydney’s audience.

   Alex Roberts [05:02]: “They wear also beige, cream, white, black clothing. They wear, you know, chunky sweaters or over oversized sweatsuits.”

3. Economic Impact: Sydney claims that Alyssa’s imitation has not only diluted her unique brand but has also resulted in decreased sales and follower growth for her own channels, as audiences mistake Alyssa’s content for her own.

   Alex Roberts [07:09]: “She says that she didn't sell as many Amazon products as Alyssa was copying her.”

Legal Proceedings: The Lawsuit Unfolds

Sydney Gifford took unprecedented steps by registering her social media posts with the Copyright Office—an uncommon move among influencers. This strategic action laid the groundwork for her lawsuit, filed in April 2024, encompassing several claims:

• Copyright Infringement
• Trade Dress Infringement
• Unfair Competition
• Interference with Contract
• Misappropriation of Right of Publicity

Despite skepticism from legal experts about the novelty and viability of these claims, the lawsuit progressed when a magistrate judge declined to dismiss four of the eight causes of action.

Alex Roberts [10:33]: “A magistrate judge in November decline to dismiss four of those challenged claims.”

Responses and Defenses: Alyssa’s Stand

Alyssa Scheel vehemently denies all allegations of copying. She emphasizes the diversity in her appearance compared to Sydney’s, pointing out their different racial backgrounds—Sydney being a white Hispanic woman and Alyssa a Black Latina woman—which, she argues, unmistakably differentiates them.

Alex Roberts [10:58]: “Alyssa is saying, well, we don't look alike. We are two different races, and nobody could confuse us.”

Alyssa maintains that her content falls within the broader “clean girl” genre, a common aesthetic in influencer circles, and that her work is original and compliant with existing norms.

Alyssa Scheel’s Implicit Statement [04:35]: “...These are sort of the tropes of that genre, and nothing either of us are doing is unique.”

Expert Insights: Legal Implications and Industry Impact

Professor Alex Roberts of Northeastern University, an expert in Law and Media, provides an in-depth analysis of the lawsuit’s potential ramifications:

1. Expansion of Copyright Law: Should Sydney win, the case could significantly broaden the scope of copyright protection to include not just identical content but also the overall “vibe” or aesthetic of a creator’s work.

   Alex Roberts [19:43]: “If Sidney were to win, it would be a pretty significant expansion of copyright law...”

2. Chilling Effects on Creators: A successful lawsuit could instill fear among content creators, making them hesitant to develop unique styles or engage in popular trends for fear of legal repercussions.

   Alex Roberts [19:45]: “People are afraid to create new works, to do different forms of expression that might lead to claims of infringement.”

3. Platform Responsibility: The episode raises questions about the role social media platforms play in amplifying certain aesthetics through algorithms, potentially encouraging the homogenization of content.

   Noel King [22:41]: “...they are pushing stuff at you via an algorithm and you're seeing one person do it, you're seeing two people do it...”

4. Legal Precedents: The case stands out as a unique intersection of intellectual property law and influencer marketing, with implications for future litigation in the digital content space.

   Alex Roberts [20:44]: “The cases are unpredictable...”

Concluding Thoughts: The Future of Influencer Content

As the lawsuit between Sydney Gifford and Alyssa Scheel progresses, it serves as a landmark case that could redefine the boundaries of intellectual property in the digital age. The episode underscores the complexities of influencer dynamics, the influence of algorithms, and the evolving nature of content creation.

Noel King [23:40]: “If a court agreed with Gifford that Shile followers infringed Gifford's works... that might affect how platforms choose to structure things.”

Ultimately, the outcome of this lawsuit may set critical legal standards and influence how influencers navigate their creative expressions within a competitive and highly visible industry.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Noel King [00:25]: "Their aesthetic is beige, it's serene, it's a little basic on purpose..."
• Alex Roberts [04:02]: “Sydney says that Alyssa is copying her vibe. Basically, that's what it really boils down to.”
• Alex Roberts [05:02]: “They wear also beige, cream, white, black clothing. They wear, you know, chunky sweaters or over oversized sweatsuits."
• Noel King [16:04]: “I'm following it pretty closely because it is right up my alley, to be honest with you."
• Alex Roberts [19:43]: “If Sidney were to win, it would be a pretty significant expansion of copyright law...”
• Noel King [22:41]: “I wonder whether or not the platforms bear any blame for these creators looking and sounding and alike and having the same vibe."

Final Remarks

The “Beige, Don't Kill My Vibe” episode of Today, Explained offers a comprehensive exploration of a novel legal dispute at the heart of influencer culture. By dissecting the intricacies of the case, Vox provides listeners with valuable insights into the challenges and legalities that content creators face in an increasingly saturated digital landscape.