The only question you need to ask yourself is this: if there is an expression here then that expression would have to move the needle from 'derivative work' to

The only question you need to ask yourself is this: if there is an expression here then that expression would have to move the needle from 'derivative work' to 'sufficiently new creation to warrant individual copyright'. I don't think that's the right way to view it. Contrary to the common perjorative usage of 'derivative', a 'derivative work' has a full individual copyright. The difference is that that publishing the work might also infringe on the rights of the original. For example, in Cariou everyone posits that Prince holds a copyright to his derivative works. The only question in the case is whether their usage of the original falls under fair use. But whether fair use or not, they remain derivative works. But the copyright on a derivative work lies squarely with the holder of the original copyright. We're at the limits of my knowledge, but I don't think this would be the interpretation under US law. Instead, I think the holder of the original has no automatic claim to the copyright on the derivative, but would likely prevail in a suit against the infringer to collect damages. I'll try to research more. Thanks for your followup.