No, that's not the right criterium. You can create a new song but it may (not will) be classified as a derived work.

Note that in audio it is fairly easy to prove that a part was sampled and unless your samples are pure noise you would most likely not get away with this. Plenty of artists are more than happy to give permission but they are also likely more than happy to sue if you don't ask for it.

And some don't care. But that should not be your assumption.

Using the same words to write a different book is emphatically not the same as using samples of spoken/sung words or played notes or riffs to create another song. These arguments have all been tried in court (see that article linked above) and failed.

And that's where sites like this:

https://www.whosampled.com/Us3/Cantaloop-(Flip-Fantasia)/sam...

come in handy, if you listen to those other songs you'll realize how brilliant this Cantaloop version really is, in spite of being made using a very high fraction of samples from other songs.

But they did credit them, and they did ask for permission.

Finally, it's good form: artists are usually part of the same eco system and you tend to not do to others what you don't want done to you. If you feel that having your artwork sampled for inclusion by SD is the way forward then that should be your right to decide. But not for SD to decide (in my opinion...).