[Ichneumon]

Even if there is some obligation on your part for pictures linked to your site (and I don't think there is) the fact that these are political parodies allows for a fair use.

Yes and no. It's allowable to make a parody *of* almost anything, but that's not the same as being allowed to make a parody *using* someone's copyrighted material as a foundation.

[HiTech RedNeck]

Mightn't the key be as to whether a transformative use was made of the work. It could be argued that the context in which it was placed (the FR page) made a transformative use of it, imparting a meaning it could never have on its own. In that wise it would be like parody. Unfortunately FR does not have anywhere near enough money to go up in court against the likes of Bill Gates, who has made energetic efforts to subvert other laws that would protect from a lesser funded litigant. Seems that it's the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules.

[ClintonBeGone]

It's allowable to make a parody *of* almost anything, but that's not the same as being allowed to make a parody *using* someone's copyrighted material as a foundation.

And you know this how? If what you said is true, it would conflict with every supreme court case I've read on the issue of parody. How do you think these parody cases get to the supreme court? They involve someone's copyrighted work.