I'm just some regular jerkoff. I don't have the answers. I will try to figure some shit out and get back to you.

They haven't removed any posts that weren't actually Fatrick's or Lizard's photos, I think we're fine as long as we lay off their Instagram.

my shitty edit hasn't been removed yet either.

Pretty much every post that got removed didn't get removed until 7-8 days later, so if its only a couple days old, it probably wouldn't have gotten removed yet.

Can't you just draw something on it and then it's fair use? I'm just a regular Eddie Punchclock, though, law-talking is over my head.

That's kind of a grey area. In order to be considered parody, it must be significantly transformative. There is no clear definition what is a safe amount in order to be considered transformative. So replacing the logo on his t-shirt with a picture of a dick is probably not protected under fair use.

Honestly, man, there likely are very few scenarios that require minimal effort where we can use his photos. I'm not spending two hours in photoshop every time I want to shitpost, especially if reddit is just going to decide to play it safe and remove it anyways.

Maybe we'll luck out and an old friend of his from high school will show up with a folder of pictures of Fatrick and tell us we can go to town.

Or maybe we'll get lucky and he'll get raped and murdered by a gang of black men after he tells them he loves them

https://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

It's a bit of a read, but it explains how the person who takes a photograph owns the digital rights to it.

While Imgur may technically be a workaround, there's absolutely no reason to believe Reddit will see it that way. They'll still get the DMCA, and they'll likely still remove the post.

That one is a different story than a run-of-the-mill tweet, especially since it went pseudo-viral.

The problem is this is a whole lot of grey area. Not every tweet is protected by copyright, and there's not really a clearly definined line where the cutoff is.

The content must be original to its author, meaning the expression cannot be copied from someone else, and it must possess at least a minimal amount of creativity. For example, a tweet that merely lists the 5 most popular television shows in the country will likely not contain the requisite amount of creativity (remember facts aren't protected). On the other hand, a tweet containing commentary and analysis about what makes those 5 shows so popular would likely satisfy the requirement.

The tweet must contain something more than simply a name, single word, or short phrase, since these are not protected by copyright law. Although there is a 280-character limit, a lot can potentially be said in 280 characters or less.

You know what, it wouldn't surprise me if that lame mother fucker actually copyrighted that phrase in the hopes of turning it into merch some day.

Can you please PM me the link?

Because I'm collecting bullshit DMCA claims, just in case Pat does sue someone.

What if we just draw embarrassingly bad pictures of Patrick with his gut hanging out and a dick in his mouth

Shush child, let the grownups speak...

So just like every other pic of Patrick, apart from the cock.

/u/RoliMosimann seems to know what he's talking about here.

Pictures he took are one thing. He can eat a dick when it comes to screenshots of his public social media posts, though: https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/is-it-against-the-law-to-share-a-screenshot-of-som-2894203.html

Nice.