> The lawsuit alleged that Jones used the character without permission as part of a promotional poster also featuring images of himself, President Trump and far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.
To be honest this feels like something that is covered by fair use law?
It was not for a purpose specifically mentioned, other fair uses require lawyers. The use was commercial, and it was the whole (?, I did not see the poster) image. Since pepe is now associated with far-right, conspiracies and fake news, it's easy to argue a loss of value. Why do you feel this is fair use?
It's not educational, not satiric, not for parody, not scientific, not for non-profit, not illustrative...
It's purely used as a promotion tool to further commercial ends.