Anyone who creates or publishes political memes or memes that are critical of public figures or celebrities, is eventually going to get a cease and desist or other threatening correspondence from a lawyer, demanding you remove the meme or they will threaten legal action. I’m not a lawyer, and not qualified to offer legal advice in a professional category, but since I’ve been on the receiving end of lawyer threatening me, I’ll share with you how I stopped them from coming after me.
Parody, satire and humor are forms of criticism, and is 
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Historically courts have been sensitive to the interaction between parody as a means of entertainment and as a form of social commentary and criticism and First Amendment values. The public interest in such expression could be construed as outweighing the rights of the copyright owner. Entertainers have successfully invoked free speech principles to present wide-ranging artistic expression. Parody Fair Use Or Copyright Infringement
legally protected form of speech and is immune from copyright infringement claims. There is a long established history of parody being an accepted means of 
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
Satire and parody are important forms of political commentary that rely on blurring the line between truth and outrageousness to attack, scorn and ridicule public figures. Although they may be offensive and intentionally injurious, these statements contain constitutionally protected ideas and opinions, provided a reasonable reader would not mistake the statements as describing actual facts. Put another way, subjects of even the most biting satire or criticism cannot successfully sue unless the irreverent comments contain a provably false fact. Moreover, public officials and figures must prove that the defendant published the statement with actual malice. Legal Protection for Satire and Parody legally protected form of critical journalism. Parody, satire and memes are protected under the “Fair Use” provision in 
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
The fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. US Code Copyright Act Section 107 US Code Copyright Act Section 107. As long as your meme content has undergone a transformative process, which resulted in a new message, that is completely different, and does not supplant the original, or decrease it’s value, your meme is completely legal.
This isn’t just theoretical legal belief, there have been cases where this was put to the test and legal precedent is established:
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
It is uncontested here that 2 Live Crew7apos;s song would be an infringement of Acuff-Rose's rights in "Oh, Pretty Woman," under the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. 106 (1988 ed. and Supp. IV), but for a finding of fair use through parody. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (Pretty Woman Parody Case)
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
On balance, the strong parodic nature of the ad tips the first factor significantly toward fair use, even after making some discount for the fact that it promotes a commercial product. "Less indulgence," does not mean no indulgence at all. This is not a case like Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., where a copyrighted drawing was appropriated solely to advertise a movie, without any pretense of making a comment upon the original. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (Naked Gun Case)
(CLICK TO ENLARGE)
We must decide whether a poetic account of the O.J. Simpson double murder trial entitled The Cat NOT in the Hat! A Parody by Dr. Juice, presents a sufficient showing of copyright and trademark infringement of the well-known The Cat in the Hat by Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. (Cat in the Hat Case)
