Ok I've had a cup of coffee.
Concerning the Copyrights. I am not a lawfag. But I have dealt with the use of copyrighted images. It's a sticky situation. Sometimes it's ok to use for "fair use". Mainly that is for educational purposes. Parodies can fall under it too but not always. If the creator is using his images for monetary purposes and it is harming his business… He can try to sue for it. It's iffy but he can take it court. It would be up to the judge but then again you can't get blood (money) out of a turnip so the best they can do is just take the images down.
Also, this is on the creators exact image that he has created. If you redraw it and make it different than their original work. Not much they can do about it. But if you have used the exact image and even changed it a little, they can still sue.
It will also depend on what the creator has put on his site for the use of his copyrighted images. Most can be very specific about it. Sometimes they state nothing can be changed. Or they want to know what it is used for. Some you have to purchase a license for their use. Some want their name or site close to the image. Some want to have the license number on the image. It goes on and on.
Now does this give any right for the creator of Pepe to sue. Some of it he can if someone used his original work. Even parody or educational purposes IF it is harming his business. Which his is children's books from what I can understand and others are using if for political purposes. That can harm his business.
What can he do. To Anons (unless your a dumbass and put your name and addy in the fields) nothing. But he can go after CodeMonkey if he owns this site.He would be forced to take down every original work of each and every bread. Course the creator would also have to go through each and every bread too to point out which is his. Money wise would be depending on the judge. Most times it's just take the images down. If he doesn't then it will come into money or even taking down the site completely if he doesn't comply.
Even Q has done a few that would fall under copyright or even defamation of character. Who knows with Q, could be part of the plan. Such as the Hillary/Chelsea upside down cross. I don't care if you don't agree with me or not, they were not upside down crosses. Hillary and Chelsea could sue for it if they wanted to. But then that would bring all this out of closet so to speak KEK. The one with the Cal Poly image of Q+. They could sue if they wanted to.
It's all iffy. Can they, can't they? Yes/no. Either way it brings attention to the masses whether positive or negative. Kind of like the stupid commercials you see. You may think it's idiotic, stupid and you wonder why they even done it in the first place………the kicker. You WILL remember it. That's advertising.