There is a widespread belief, especially online, that if you change someone else’s work, modify it, remix it, trace it, or add your own style, it becomes new and therefore free to use. This belief is incredibly common among digital artists, video creators, musicians, editors, meme creators, and even businesses trying to create marketing content. However, in reality, altering a copyrighted work does not automatically make it your own. The idea that “if I change it, it’s not stealing” is one of the most misunderstood concepts surrounding copyright infringement.

To understand whether altering or remixing a work counts as infringement, we need to examine what the law protects. Copyright does not protect ideas — it protects the expression of those ideas. The unique way a melody is arranged, the particular composition of a photograph, the color choices and linework of an illustration, the pacing and structure of a written passage — all of these elements represent original creative expression, and they are protected.

If a modified work still contains recognizable creative expression from the original, copyright infringement is likely to have occurred. In many cases, the altered work becomes what is known as a derivative work, and derivative works are protected by copyright as well. Only the original creator (or copyright holder) has the legal right to allow derivative works to be made.

What Is a Derivative Work?

A derivative work is any new creation that is built on, based on, or adapted from someone else’s original work. This includes:

• Remixes of music

• Redrawn or recolored artwork

• Traced images

• Video edits or compilations

• Translations of written text into another language

• Adaptations of a written story into a new plot or setting

• Recreated characters and fan redesigns

• Rewritten blog posts with the same structure and meaning

• 3D models built from image references of another creator’s design

If the core structure or recognizable identity of the original remains, the new version is considered a derivative work.

Only the copyright owner has the right to authorize derivative works.
Without permission, derivative works are copyright infringement, even if they required effort, talent, or new interpretation.

Why Effort Alone Does Not Make Something “Original”

Some people argue:

• “I spent hours redrawing this, so it should be mine.”

• “I changed 20% of it, so it’s different now.”

• “I remixed it and added my own creativity; it’s new.”

Effort does not override copyright.
Transformation is not judged by how long the new work took to create — it is judged by whether the original creative expression is still recognizable.

For example:

A singer who records a cover version of a copyrighted song has added their own voice, emotion, and interpretation. Their version still requires permission, because the melody, structure, and lyrics remain the same.

A digital artist who traces or repaints someone else’s artwork has added labor and skill, but if the character design, composition, pose, or style is recognizable, the work is still derivative and requires permission.

Modification does not erase ownership. Originality is not measured by effort — it is measured by originality of expression.

The Myth of the “20% Rule”

Some people believe that changing 20% of a work makes it legally safe to use. This guideline is completely false. There is no percentage rule in copyright law. Even if someone changes half of a work, if the remaining half is still recognizable as the original, copyright infringement can still occur.

The question is always:

Is the creative essence of the original still identifiable?

If yes, the modified version is still connected to the original creator’s expression.

Remix Culture and the Role of Fair Use

Many online creators reference Fair Use to justify altering or remixing content. Fair Use allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission, but only in narrow contexts such as:

• Criticism

• Commentary

• Teaching

• News reporting

• Parody (not imitation, but a direct humorous critique of the original)

However, Fair Use is not a free pass. It is evaluated case by case, based on factors such as:

• Purpose of use (educational vs. commercial)

• Amount used (small parts vs. large portions)

• Market effect (whether the new use harms the original creator’s ability to earn money)

• Transformative value (whether the new work adds significant new meaning or message)

Simply remixing or altering a work does not automatically count as Fair Use. Most remixes are still derivative works unless they are deeply transformative and provide new commentary or meaning.

For example:

• A video essay that analyzes a film using short clips may qualify as Fair Use.

• A compilation of funny scenes from that same film, without commentary, does not.

Tracing, Referencing, and Redrawing Artwork

In digital art communities, artists may trace or reference existing works for practice. Practice is important and normal, but when traced or referenced art is:

• Posted online

• Shared on a portfolio

• Sold as prints

• Used as a commission base

• Presented as original art

It becomes copyright infringement and possibly plagiarism.

This remains true even when:

• The lines are changed slightly

• The colors differ

• The style is shifted

• The original image is used only as a “base”

If the original pose, composition, or design elements are recognizable, the work is derivative.

Music Sampling and Beats

Music sampling is another common example. Using even a few seconds of recorded audio from another song creates a derivative work. Whether the sample is slowed, sped up, pitched, looped, or filtered, the original can still be recognized. Sampling always requires permission unless it meets very rare Fair Use criteria.

Video Editing and Compilation Channels

Video content creators who collect clips from movies, shows, interviews, or creators and repost or re-edit them are typically committing copyright infringement, especially if the content is monetized. Even if they:

• Add subtitles

• Change colors

• Alter the frame

• Add background music

• Include a new intro

The original visual expression remains and is protected.

When Transformation Is Enough to Avoid Infringement

A transformation must do more than change appearance. It must change meaning, purpose, or message.

Transformation may be sufficient when:

• The new work comments on the original

• The new work criticizes the original

• The new work parodies the original clearly and intentionally

• The new work uses the original as a tool of explanation or critique, not as a creative base

Simply making something “look different” is not enough.

The Emotional and Ethical Impact of Derivative Misuse

When someone alters a creator’s work without permission, they may unintentionally:

• Remove the original creator’s voice or identity

• Claim ownership of artistic labor they did not perform

• Undermine the creator’s reputation or message

• Harm the creator’s ability to earn income from their work

• Reduce the meaning or context that the creator intended

Permission is not just a legal requirement; it is an act of artistic respect.

The Core Truth

If the original work can still be recognized, the altered work is not truly original. It is a derivative work.
And derivative works require the copyright holder’s permission.

Changing, remixing, editing, or transforming someone else’s creative expression does not make it your own.