> I also think a sane interpretation of fair use would be that the scan is a new / derivative work that is transformative
The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformative.
If I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it?
How is a single pixel of difference in potentially hundreds of pages of text a meaningful change? It isn't changing the characters or story itself in the slightest.
Please, defend that point as an actual argument that it's then somehow fair use to change one pixel of an ebook and have it be a meaningfully different work.
The creative part being protected by copyright are the words, not the physical pages. You're not transforming the words; you're transforming the paper to bitmaps. All the words and concepts within them are the same. It's not transformative in the same way ripping a CD to an MP3 isn't transformative.
If I change the font for an ebook, have I meaningfully transformed it?