> only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work That's a giant only. If the resulting image is not

> only if it was substantially similar to an existing work and was not transformative of that existing work That's a giant only. If the resulting image is nothing close to the source image then yes I agree you're unlikely to lose any copyright case. But its the cases where they are similar that anybody cares. I pick the word "stock imagery" for a specific reason; I do no see a way that you can have a transformative use of stock imagery since its use is so vague. And a reminder (with a quote this time) transformative does not refer to the production it refers to the use. If you painted every single stock imagery you could find and let companies license those paintings (or pictures of your paintings) instead of using the source stock imagery I believe you'd lose a copyright lawsuit. > [1] AWF contends that the Prince Series works are “transformative,” and that the first fair use factor thus weighs in AWF’s favor, because the works convey a different meaning or message than the photograph. But the first fair use factor instead focuses on whether an allegedly infringing use has a further purpose or different character [1]: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf