An interesting glimpse into just how curated and monetized one’s life can be, played out in a lawsuit. As the article points out, it’s hard to have sympathy for them (although I do personally find the idea of mimicking another person’s life to this degree to be quite sad). Ultimately, the work these women do also endorses copying the work of others, something Amazon is notorious for, taking the irony to a whole new level:
> If the argument is that Sheil is duplicating Gifford’s existence, there’s something to be said about the fact that the items both of them promote are also imitations of someone else’s work.
She is not copying the others work, she is merely mimicking it. There is no copyright violation if you make videos or ads in the very same successful style.
Thanks your honor,, I appreciate the quick judgement!
But seriously, the tawdry commercialism being imitated is hardly novel or innovative. It’s all derivative drivel, intentionally devoid of substance or character, intrinsically noncommittal, and bleach-sterilized against any potential intellectual fecundity.
I can see the point of irritation, but I seriously doubt that this can reasonably be considered infringement.
> If the argument is that Sheil is duplicating Gifford’s existence, there’s something to be said about the fact that the items both of them promote are also imitations of someone else’s work.
reply