Like using music from a video game/film in a video that isn’t published on the internet, or using it as a ringtone in phones, or using voice lines from a video game as notification sounds. (There are a lot of other uses that I won’t mention here)
Like using music from a video game/film in a video that isn’t published on the internet, or using it as a ringtone in phones, or using voice lines from a video game as notification sounds. (There are a lot of other uses that I won’t mention here)
Your phrasing sounds like fair use is the default case for non-commercial when really it just makes it “more likely” legal. The most obvious example is Hachette v. Internet Archive. US copyright is so pro-business that you never know until the gavel is down.
Well obviously printing copies for free is illegal, thats just how antipiracy laws work, but the courts clearly stated even in that link that if IA had made sure the print to copy ratio was 1:1 or that notable changes to make it considerably transformative then it would have been fair use.
Then your criteria isn’t "noncommercial but “noncommercial and transformative” (“the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, disfavored fair use because although the use was noncommercial, it was also not transformative”), which OP’s examples aren’t. Using film music for your videos isn’t transformative. Law doesn’t have a “I didn’t distribute my video” exception either unless that’s how the music was licensed to you.
Fair Use at its core requires you are creating something and not making copies. Its an integral part of the conversation. Therefor it is heavily implied.
Thus it doesn’t apply to OP’s examples, that is my point.
(FWIW you can make a copy of a copyrighted image to extensively critique it as long as the copy is not unreasonably detailed.)
The critique itself is the new content, and the copyrighted image is an accessory to that.