Well, I could see how you might think that. And, indeed, I do think our use of it was legal or I would never have done it in the first place. But if a nice person calls up and asks nicely, what's the harm in doing a favor to someone about something quite so tangential to our mission? Of course if someone wanted something *substantive* removed, that would be different.|
One of the nice things about having rights is that it includes the right to choose when and whether to exercise them. My vote (which could be overruled by my fellow editors, of course), is to be as nice to everyone as we can be, especially about things that are not core to our mission. While the editors of this web site enjoy the same First Amendment rights as any other news and commentary organization based in the USA, and I for one am fully prepared to assert them if needed, we also enjoy the use of our independent judgment as to what's important and when we can be nicer than legally required. The fact is that our graphics are meant to be colorful and entertaining and easy markers for types of stories but it's the stories that matter...
The only potential harms I can see here is that this action might (1) encourage other people to complain about our use of images; (2) encourage people to attempt to get us to remove content. The first one doesn't panic me for the reasons given above (anyway, at this moment, I think the only other logo we currently use in any form is a part of ICANN's). In contrast, the second one would be a serious matter, but as I said, I'm prepared to fight about what I think matters.