Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: It doesn't matter. This sort of thing goes to the very core of what the freedom of speech is all about. We have a right to comment and document on matters of a political nature, and our right to do so is very much tied up in our abiity to reproduce small snippets of content, such as this logo, to further that purpose. There are at least two possible issues here: 1. Copyright in the logo -- this falls quite cleanly under fair use. 2. Trademark -- we are not using the logo as a trademark, but rather as illustration of an article about the Bush campaign, which is symbolized by the trademark. And finally, it is worth taking some reasonable consideration of what the legal risk could possibly be. It would be a political disaster of such monumental proportions for the Bush/Cheney campaign to hassle the beloved Wikipedia in such a baseless manner as any complaint about this would be. It is important not to violate copyrights or trademarks, but this is not plausibly a violation. It is important to not take legal risks that are too severe, even if there is a plausible argument that we are right, but in this case, the nature of the parties (a political party and a volunteer encyclopedia project) makes it virtually impossible that we would even get the hint of a complaint about this. --Jimbo