The point I'm trying to make is that copyright rules are severely inconsistent. It serves no other purpose than to give people new tools to oppress eachother within the legal system. You know there's a problem when the gray area is so large it requires courts to make decisions like what art is "transformative" and what is not. That is not a court's decision, but because we have things like copyright infringment of media, it is.
Other industries could follow the fashion industry's lead and drop copyright infringment altogether. Somehow they manage survive and innovate without it using just social pressures, not legal pressures.
Involving the courts is by design. Because Congress decided to create this right, and because it's messy, and because creating rules around "messy" is a Hard Problem ... let's involve the courts! As evidence that this was intentional, see "fair use" - no one thinks they're allowed to make a fair use decision without filing a lawsuit.
Point: I get why the courts are involved. But I'm right there with you that the whole system gets used as an oppressive instrument.
We can discuss our opinions on the finer details of the ambiguities of copyright until the universe collapses in on itself and it's pointless until you take your case to the courts and get a definitive legal ruling.