What counts as transformative use?

[Factually True]

"A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways." - A Quick Google Search

I was wondering if there are any experts on this subject here. I've researched a bit but this seems like a sort of gray area so maybe it's easier to just ask.

I make illustrations using mainly already existing artwork/photographs, usually combining a number of different elements to visualize what I'm saying in the voice over. Does this sort of use count as "completely new or unexpected"? If not, what does?


Ps. I obviously try to only use creative commons -licensed material, but there is always the slight possibility that someone has for example uploaded a photo that they don't really even own the rights to under a creative commons license.

 

[Shakycow]

That's just it- it is a huge grey area that, for all intents, is up to the judge to decide. There have been cases where the work has been declared transformative with very little changes and there have been cases where plenty was changed and they were ruled in violation of copyright law. There is no set rule or guideline that states if you change X% it's allowed.

 

[Worldofpossible]

"A derivative work is transformative if it uses a source work in completely new or unexpected ways." - A Quick Google Search

I was wondering if there are any experts on this subject here. I've researched a bit but this seems like a sort of gray area so maybe it's easier to just ask.

I make illustrations using mainly already existing artwork/photographs, usually combining a number of different elements to visualize what I'm saying in the voice over. Does this sort of use count as "completely new or unexpected"? If not, what does?


Ps. I obviously try to only use creative commons -licensed material, but there is always the slight possibility that someone has for example uploaded a photo that they don't really even own the rights to under a creative commons license.

If you look up YMS (Your movie sucks) after the cool cat debacle between the creator of cool cat and IHE (I Hate Everything) adam does a pretty good job of demonstrating what fair use and transfomrtive work is. YMS has been dealing with youtube's copyright strike problems for years. I would suggest having a look if want a bit depth on the subject.

 

[Idec Sdawkminn]

From what I understand of it, it has less to do with the percent changed (though that is a factor) and more with the purpose of the change. A remix of a song, for example, is less likely to be fair use because the purpose of the original is to provide musical entertainment for listening and/or dancing to and a remix is for the exact same purpose. In the same way, taking a movie scene and adding better special effects would be using the original material for the same reason that it was created for.

It would be different if you took that same scene and recut it to change the context of the scene and make it look like the characters were doing different things or the same things for different reasons, thus telling a different story. This kind of use makes the original material comment on itself and on the meaning of the original, as well as the creator. A much more direct way of commenting on it is to actually provide commentary over the original content. In that way, the original content isn't being displayed for the purpose of entertainment in the same way it was when watching the movie. It is being displayed to provide the context of the commentary.

 

[Factually True]

If you look up YMS (Your movie sucks) after the cool cat debacle between the creator of cool cat and IHE (I Hate Everything) adam does a pretty good job of demonstrating what fair use and transfomrtive work is. YMS has been dealing with youtube's copyright strike problems for years. I would suggest having a look if want a bit depth on the subject.

I've actually followed the Cool Cat feud a bit, IHE being one of my favourite youtubers I just always thought that it was more about the criticism part of fair use, but looking a bit more into it I guess "transformative use" is actually just an extra requirement of fair use, not an extra class (if that makes any sense ). In other words even if the use can be considered "transformative", it would still have to be commenting on the source material to count as fair use - and vice versa if you were commenting but it wasn't transformative, it would not be fair use.

Thanks for everyone's answers, they were really helpful!