Recent intellectual property disputes demonstrate that “style” is increasingly at the center of creative conflict—from the Sad Beige lawsuit between Sydney Nicole Gifford and Alyssa Sheil over allegedly copied Instagram aesthetics, to the viral surge of Studio Ghibli-style AI images following OpenAI’s image generator release that appears to contradict the creative ethos of Hayao Miyazaki, Studio Ghibli’s co-founder and visionary director. 

These disputes prompt renewed scrutiny of an old question: Can a personal aesthetic or style be legally protected under U.S. intellectual property law? 

For creators navigating an AI-disrupted digital economy, understanding the boundaries of intellectual property law in this context is crucial. 

U.S. copyright law draws a fundamental distinction between ideas and the expression of ideas. Known as the “idea-expression dichotomy,” this foundational principle holds that only the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, receives copyright protection. This means that while specific creative works—photographs, videos, written content—can be protected, broader aesthetic choices like color palettes, minimalist vibes, or artistic techniques are not copyrightable. 

This legal framework creates space for innovation and artistic evolution. If the first artist to adopt a monochromatic palette could claim exclusive rights to that style, the chilling effect on creativity would be profound. 

Why Style Isn’t Copyrightable 

However, style imitation can cross into trademark territory when it creates brand confusion. While copyright protects individual works, trademark law protects indicators of source—like names, logos, slogans, and the overall look and feel of a product or service. Trade dress, a specialized form of trademark protection, safeguards distinctive visual characteristics that consumers associate with a particular brand, but only if they are both distinctive and non-functional. This creates a narrow but important potential avenue for style protection beyond traditional copyright boundaries. 

Case Study 1: The “Sad Beige” Lawsuit 

In 2024, influencer Sydney Nicole Gifford sued fellow influencer Alyssa Sheil in Texas federal court, alleging that Sheil copied her “neutral, beige and cream aesthetic” and misappropriated the distinctive visual and stylistic elements associated with her brand. 

Gifford’s copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, DMCA violations, and misappropriation of likeness claims survived Sheil’s motion to dismiss yet faced insurmountable hurdles. Her aesthetic choices—neutral tones, minimalist compositions, and cozy lifestyle imagery—are generally considered unprotectable ideas rather than copyrightable fixed expressions. While specific photographs or videos might receive copyright protection, the broader aesthetic cannot be monopolized by any one creator. 

This case was ultimately dismissed with prejudice, with Sheil paying nothing. This result signals the uphill battle of protecting a style under copyright law. Creators cannot claim ownership over general aesthetic concepts. While personal style may be central to brand identity, it remains difficult to protect through existing copyright laws without more concrete, distinctive elements.  

Case Study 2: Studio Ghibli & AI Image Generation 

In March 2024, OpenAI launched a new image generator that enabled users to create detailed visuals from prompts. It started a viral trend in which users created images “in the style of Studio Ghibli,” sparking a global wave of AI-generated content resembling the studio’s signature animation style. This trend sparked fierce debate over complex questions about AI training, copyright infringement, and false endorsement. 

Fundamental copyright principles suggest that Studio Ghibli’s distinctive style, as opposed to a specific expression, is not protectable under copyright law. However, it also raises new legal concerns for creators, particularly around how AI training data and stylistic attribution could be interpreted. 

First, if the AI model was trained on copyrighted Ghibli works without permission, there may be concerns over copyright infringement at the training level. OpenAI maintains that training its models qualifies as fair use, but this legal defense remains largely untested in court. 

On the other hand, Studio Ghibli may have viable claims under trademark and unfair competition theories. While abstract “style” isn’t copyrightable, the studio could potentially claim that OpenAI’s promotion of Ghibli-style content created a false impression of affiliation under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. OpenAI employees posting Ghibli-style portraits of themselves and encouraging users to generate similar images may contribute to public confusion, suggesting a collaboration or endorsement that does not exist. 

Practical Takeaways for Creators 

Understanding the legal boundaries when it comes to style empowers creators to protect their work effectively while avoiding unnecessary disputes. Here are my recommended strategies: 

  • Register Copyrights: Protect specific creative works—drawings, videos, photographs, or written content. These tangible expressions are enforceable and give creators stronger legal protections. 
  • Leverage Trademark Law: Secure trademark protection for business names, logos, slogans, and distinctive packaging or design elements. Consistent branding reinforces public association and can strengthen trade dress claims. 
  • Document Your Creative Process: Keep detailed records of your creative development. Drafts, sketches, even mood boards, may help prove originality and creative development if challenged. 
  • Watch for False Endorsement: Monitor for uses of your name, likeness, or style that suggest unauthorized affiliation or endorsement, especially in AI-generated content. 
  • Use AI Tools with Caution: Be mindful when prompting generative AI to mimic known creators or brands. Legal gray zones exist, and closely imitating another’s style could open the door to legal scrutiny.   

The creative economy is evolving rapidly, shaped by generative AI and the growing reach of social media. As tools make stylistic mimicry easier, the line between inspiration and infringement continues to blur. While general aesthetics, styles, and “vibes” remain outside copyright’s reach, creators who understand the limits—and opportunities—of IP law are better positioned to protect their work. 

Now is the time for creators to audit their intellectual property portfolio, establish clear ownership of original content, and stay informed as the legal landscape evolves.  

At Omnus, we partner with creators and businesses to protect their work, strengthen their brand identity, and navigate the shifting IP landscape with clarity and confidence. If you’re unsure what protections apply to your content, whether it’s a design, story, or a signature look, we’re here to help.