Media & Entertainment | Intellectual Property | Influencers & Creators laws
Introduction: Fair Use in the Age of Filters and Fandoms
Whether it’s remixing a song on TikTok, parodying a famous brand in a YouTube sketch, or using film clips in commentary on Instagram Reels, today’s digital creators often rely—intentionally or not—on the legal doctrine of fair use. But the key to understanding what is—and is not—fair use increasingly hinges on one pivotal concept: transformative use.
This article provides a practical breakdown of transformative use, explores how courts have interpreted it in recent cases, and offers real-world guidance for creators and lawyers navigating the legal gray zone of internet content.
What Is Fair Use? A 30-Second Recap
Fair use is a defense against copyright infringement. It allows for limited use of copyrighted materials without permission if the use serves purposes such as criticism, commentary, news reporting, parody, education, or research.
Courts assess fair use based on four statutory factors (17 U.S.C. § 107):
- Purpose and character of the use (including whether it’s commercial or educational)
- Nature of the copyrighted work
- Amount and substantiality of the portion used
- Effect on the market for the original work
Among these, the first factor—purpose and character—is often the most debated, particularly when it comes to transformative use.
Defining “Transformative Use”: The Legal Standard
The term “transformative” was crystallized in the Supreme Court’s 1994 decision in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, which held that a work is transformative if it “adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning, or message.”
In other words, a transformative use repurposes the original work in a way that offers something qualitatively different—not merely copying it, but commenting on it, criticizing it, or placing it in a new context.
Key Rulings: How Courts Have Applied Transformative Use
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music (1994)
2 Live Crew’s parody of “Oh, Pretty Woman” was ruled transformative because it commented on the original work’s themes.
Cariou v. Prince (2013)
Photographer Patrick Cariou sued artist Richard Prince for appropriating and altering his photos. The Second Circuit held that many of Prince’s altered images were transformative because they conveyed a new aesthetic and purpose—even if they used large parts of the original works.
Andy Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith (2023)
In a landmark decision, SCOTUS rejected the Warhol Foundation’s argument that Warhol’s silkscreen portrait of Prince (based on Lynn Goldsmith’s photo) was transformative, because it was licensed commercially to Vanity Fair. The Court emphasized that even if a work alters the original’s message, commercial use must be weighed carefully.
Takeaway: Transformation is not enough on its own—especially when money is involved.
Implications for Influencers and Digital Creators
So, what does this mean for the average TikTok creator or YouTuber remixing pop culture?
Likely Transformative:
- A comedic skit that parodies a luxury fashion ad
- A critical video essay using short film clips to analyze cinematography
- A news commentary segment that rebroadcasts a brief viral moment with added context
Unlikely Transformative:
- Using copyrighted music in the background of a dance video without commentary
- Uploading full episodes of a TV show with minimal changes
- Reposting another creator’s work with slight edits and claiming fair use
Even popular formats like reaction videos, duets, and “Get Ready With Me” edits may fall into legal gray areas depending on how much new meaning or commentary is added.
Fair Use ≠ Free Use: The Role of Commercialization
Many influencers assume that nonprofit or “fun” content = fair use, but that’s a myth. Courts scrutinize commercial intent, especially when content is monetized via:
- Ad revenue (YouTube, TikTok Creator Fund)
- Sponsorships and affiliate marketing
- Merchandise sales tied to the copyrighted material
In Warhol, the Court emphasized that even creative reinterpretation can fail as fair use if the user profits at the original creator’s expense.
Best Practices for Creators and Legal Counsel
To minimize legal risk while maximizing creativity, consider the following:
Add commentary, critique, or satire
Limit the amount used to what’s necessary
Avoid implying endorsement or association
Use disclaimers (though they don’t guarantee protection)
Seek licenses when feasible—especially for music, logos, or long-form video
Document your creative process to show intentional transformation
Conclusion: Legal Line-Drawing in a Remix Culture
“Transformative use” remains a fluid and fact-specific inquiry, often decided in the courtroom. But as influencers increasingly drive digital culture, courts are being asked to draw clearer lines—between inspiration and infringement, commentary and commercial exploitation.
The key for creators is not to avoid all copyrighted content—but to engage with it critically, creatively, and responsibly.
Sidebar: When Is It NOT Transformative?
- Lip-syncing to copyrighted audio without commentary
- Using toy brands in adult-themed narratives without satire or commentary (see Sylvanian Drama lawsuit)
- Uploading clips from movies or shows as background for unrelated content
Subscribe for Full Access.
