No, it would absolutely not be okay for use under fair use doctrine because you are deliberately and explicitly doing so with the intent of making a profit or for financial purposes. With a specific product in mind which the Cyanide and Happiness guys are not party to.
This is the sort of thing for which you get permission for.
Worse, however, is you didn't use their artwork directly but created a derivative work there from, altering it, and making it server message it did not originally possess, and failed to credit the original creator in the image – not that such would have saved you, it just makes you look even more like a douchebag if this ever goes before a judge.
Respecting other people's work is not that hard. Unless you're trying to say that there are no original artists available on the steem blockchain, at which point you will get an incredibly hard stare.
Just to be clear, "I" am not the creator of the meme. [image credit @rannarvasa1]
I'm also getting various responses from people that say it depends on the purpose. If a user were to share that on their personal facebook page for example, it is similar to a lot of other memes that have been based off of the same comic.
You are promoting the meme, with the clear intention of enhancing the spread of this pseudo-event by attachment to something you consider amusing.
Which, cynically, might be a perfectly reasonable metaphor for a lot of the usage of the steem blockchain right now.
If a user were to share that exact image on their personal Facebook, it would technically be an example of fair use. But you, who in theory wishes to represent the steem blockchain is a place where content creators can and should share their material freely in exchange for just compensation, in the process of promoting that very thing violating that axiomatic principal – it looks worse than bad.
That it doesn't even occur to you that it might be a problem is triply damning.
It stands as a cultural problem with the user base of Steemit that one of its strongest, most aggressive boosters gives not even the shadow of a thought to potential copyright violation, issues of derivative work, consideration of whether or not a creator wants to be associated with a commercial work, the recognition that a post on Steemit is a literal commercial work (because you can receive compensation for the act of posting it self, and as of the time of this posting are looking at roughly 20 steem of value as a result of this post)… This is all a huge problem.
It's a huge problem for the platform, and it's a huge problem for the user base, and it's a huge problem for boosters who want to try and encourage people to use the platform.
I'm actually disappointed that it didn't occur to you when you were thinking about this whole "blast" thing that for a near microscopic offer of steem to one of our native artists, you could commission an original piece to promote the site and instantaneously improve the standing in the eyes of artists and other creators. That didn't occur to you.
That's terribly sad. It didn't occur to you.
What does that actually say about the community?
You are reading a lot more into it than what is there. I actually had no idea that it was based on a famous/known comic until someone brought it up.
The idea that someone can take someone’s work and create a meme on it is definitely in the territory of “fair use”. I am not a lawyer or an expert in this area, which is why I am asking the question here and having the discussion.