I was wondering about the transformative issue, but I didn't think simply restoring a clip would transform it. This mattered with my book: since I was taking quotes from previous works but stitching them into something new, it is ok.
that's something I wondered about with those James Van Hise 'books' on Trek, where he grabs a chunk from CFQ here, followed by a chunk from CINEFEX there, and some AMERICAN CINEMATOGRAPHER, sometimes using quotes, often summarizing author's text. I remember on the title page there was some declaration about the nature of the book that presumably protected it against charges of copyright infringement, but I couldn't figure out how that worked.
Van Hise grabbed stuff that was very author-specific ... for example, from the TUC Cinefex, he pretty much reprinted my own line about Chang's eyepiece being only parted bolted in where I (in maybe the only instance I ever managed to do this and have it survive into print) managed to get a 'funny' into the magazine) say the effect is a klingon with a screw loose. That's not what any of the interviewees told me, so it isn't a part of TREK history, just an author's observation, which seems like it should be more sacrosanct.
Ditto for this godawful STAR WARS history book called EMPIRE BUILDING from some entity called carol press (I think that is what it was called, I tore it in thirds and threw it away long ago.)
They'd take stuff out of context, introduce errors, and still basically just be retyping other folks' work for chapters on end.
I used to flag these for the magazine when I worked there and came across them, but I think all they ever did was send 'cease & desist' letters with no weight behind them.
Maybe everybody thinks this is just like music sampling (another thing that has puzzled me for ... well, for decades now), but again I don't think that makes it right by any means.