GEN-03 · Derivative or distinct?

Document transformation from a named reference to a finished piece with enough specificity that a reviewer can argue originality or dependence — without slogans like “I changed it 30%.”

One reference the student is allowed to use (public-domain, openly licensed, or their own prior work). Step log with images or files at each stage. Short written argument citing the transformation steps, not a percentage. Optional reading: Copyright Office AI materials (https://www.copyright.gov/ai/).

Hiding the reference. Claiming fair use without naming which factors they are arguing. Showing only first and last frames so the path is invisible. Treating style similarity as proof of infringement or as proof of safety — neither follows automatically.

A transformation dossier: reference cited with license; ordered steps with artifacts; a one-page originality argument that separates what remains from the reference from what the student authored; and an explicit uncertainty note about training-data overlap the student cannot observe.

CT: arguing with steps instead of vibes. CR: choosing a reference they can actually document. CO: peer tries to identify the reference from the final alone, then with the dossier. CM: the one-page argument. CZ: the reference author.

Artist or arts teacher reviews the dossier for honesty about dependence. Standing instruction: reject percentage theater. School-supervised.

R1: one reference, one piece. R2: steps reproducible from the dossier. R3: non-AI or non-reference baseline named. R4: residual dependence stated. R5: argument fits one page. R6: refuses a legal conclusion the record cannot support.

(a) “It’s different enough.” (b) A dossier that never shows the reference.

Lane A immediately. No verified credit claim.