Natasha (and everybody else)

OK Natasha, here's the deal with your copyright question. There's a little, very blurry piece of legislation called the "Fair Use Doctrine (FUD)" in the US and "Fair Dealing Doctrine (FDD)" in Canada. In the case of FUD, parody is considered a for of criticism, and therefore protected by the First Amendment (a.k.a. freedom of speech). In Canada, parody is in limbo (at least on paper) since it is not explicitly protected by the FDD, but at the same time it is not listed as a form of violation in the Copyright Act. In practice, the issue has been settled in court through several milestone cases, with parody almost always prevailing as a legal form of expression. That said, its important to realize that emulation is not the same as parody. Also, from what I can tell, the Bee Gees cd is, at this point, quite generic since a lot of similar work was produced in its time with a lot more being produced since its release. The font they use is by now a very generic font, most likely inspired by the 60's work of designers like Herb Lubalin. Since there are a lot of fonts like this one now available to the public, it would be ridiculous to claim it as the private property of the Bee Gees (it's not like you're appropriating the Rolling Stones' "tongue logo"). Anyway, let me see what you have and I'll tell you what I think.

I want all of you to know that I'm dedicating a full class to deal with the issue of copyright. It is a crucial issue for the advancement of culture, specially if you're in the creative side of the spectrum. I think you'll find it to be one of the most interesting subjects.

Examples of what is considered a legal parody: