|See also:||OTW, Transformational Fandom, Derivative Work, Fair Use, Moral Rights|
|Click here for related articles on Fanlore.|
The term Transformative Work is sometimes used as a formal and legal expression for fanworks.
- Transformative works are creative works about characters or settings created by fans of the original work, rather than by the original creators. Transformative works include but are not limited to fanfiction, real person fiction, fan vids, and graphics. A transformative use is one that, in the words of the U.S. Supreme Court, adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [source] with new expression, meaning, or message. 
- A story from Voldemort's perspective is transformative, so is a story about a pop star that illustrates something about current attitudes toward celebrity or sexuality. 
Contemporary fannish use of the term may well be a direct result of the OTW's influence. However, casual fannish use of transformative works, transformative, and transforming may not always align with the OTW's stated definition or the original U.S. legal concept. In U.S. law, transformative use is one of the tests for determining if a work represents a fair use of another copyrighted work, but fannish use of the term is broader and can refer to any fanwork or fanwork of fanwork, whether or not the resulting work would be judged a fair use in a court of law. This has created confusion in fan arguments over, for example, whether or not podfic is creative due to the non-legal use of the term transformative to describe podfic.
While the term 'transformative work' has caught on in some sectors of fandom, other fans often find it confusing or pretentious. One anon remarked that use of the term disparaged their favorite kinds of fanworks:
While not using the word itself, this fan in 1977 writes of the appeal of the practice of transforming:I think the focus on transformative implicity devalues fanworks that aren't transformative, but are no less interesting for that. Things don't have to be legal to be well-done and interesting and valuable, and when you start using legal terms to make your argument, I feel like you're fundamentally...missing the point, I guess? Legality defines how well protected fanworks are, it doesn't define how valuable they are to a community.
There is a good deal of fun and fascination in taking someone else's Created World and, working withIn the framework of that world, adding to it, interpreting it. In this way, the worlds you enter into are made more personal, more meaningful. They become a continuing source of entertainment and delignt, rather than a static entity, with a limit to the pleasures it contains. 
- LordByronic comments on Tumblr-bashing -why? (Or why not?), Archived version (January 29, 2015), linked at fail-fandomanon; Archive (difference between curative and transformative fandoms, male and female fans)
- Current Copyright Legal Literature at the University of Texas, Austin. Seems to be updated frequently, with links to PDFs of the recent articles.
- Copyright @300: Looking Back at The Statute of Anne and Looking Forward to the Challenges of the Future Conference on copyright issues held by the University of California, Berkeley, April 2010. (The "Statute of Anne" was the first modern copyright law, enacted in 1710, named for Queen Anne of Great Britain.)
- R. Anthony Reese "Transformativeness and the Derivative Work Right," (PDF version) 31 The Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 467 (2008)