if this is added, I think an important addition would be denoting current and past logos. labels can change their logo over the years and a new logo probably shouldn't mean a new release. for instance, take the evolution of the 5 Minute Walk Records logo:

• https://coverartarchive.org/release/a8d0e2b6-8a5e-44c2-8914-34b0be72d4a3/31613685639.jpg
• https://coverartarchive.org/release/c77a2d5f-fa15-3a08-b29e-fbdfadd039e0/31685084894.jpg
• https://coverartarchive.org/release/ea5cf789-306a-4b58-a3ee-e4c34350a0d4/37107805508.jpg

this might involve adding (approximate) date support here, which might be out of the scope of this ticket?

+1

It would be good to have those, label's imprints are very useful to differentiate labels of the the same name (and there are a lot).

With MB being focused on the imprint, which is very frequently at least partially pictographic, an image of the logo is much needed, especially for editors. Encyclopedia users too would expect images of logos to be provided.

Attempts to create names for Label imprints often result in confusion.
Duplicate Labels on MB, Label name forms unique to MB and at variance with other common versions of the label's name for no apparent reason, and misleading Label name versions on MB, have all been sighted.

By having the image of the imprint displayed on the Label's MB page, far greater accuracy around Labels could be achieved. It would usually be quickly obvious whether a specific Label was the correct one.

Posited benefits:
Reduced Label duplication.
Increased accuracy of Label/Release relationship.
Better names for Labels on MB.
Easier error detection.
Greater confidence.
A more powerful database.
Increased understanding of MB as a user-friendly encyclopedia.