It's a bit of a side track, but: Any commentary on a work could reasonably be expected to feature that work substantially, couldn't it?
Now I am in favor of fairly wide latitude for this sort of reuse, which is a big reason I favor much, much shorter copyright terms, and graduated copyright at that (eg exclusive for 20 years, mandatory cheap licensing for the next 30, PD after that - for example). But it's hard to ignore the rightsholder's concern that this work is less about commentary than simply hitching a ride on a currently-popular franchise. It's not cashing in, since the person isn't trying to monetize it directly, but the person is trying to build their creative reputation from rearrangement of others' work, while denying any and all revenue to the original creator.
As someone who has spent the last decade making films from scratch rather than remixing others' work, I think this is pretty weak sauce, just as I think that DJing falls far short of musicianship. I engage in both activities, but when I'm DJing I don't consider that to be creatively equivalent to composing something original. People who say all creativity is fungible are lying to themselves.
Why do you think this? A good remix requires just as much ingenuity, just as much creative juices, as an original work. In fact, a remix might require even more ingenuity, because of the constraints of the remix. Of course, there are people who claim to be remixing, but is just putting things thoughtly side by side. But then again, you have original works that are also rubbish.
To me, the eye of the law should treat remix and originals exactly the same - works in their own right. A remix may have derivative works from else where, but as long as it is fair use to a reasonable person, it should be considered as an original.
