I can only answer for myself, but in the case of the 8-bit remixes, I felt they were like a parody of the original and should be protected on that basis. Plus, they did do a transformation that made them original.
Looking at this case, it really doesn't look like she did much of anything. They are not a new medium and seem quite like a small alteration. If it was a painting of the final origami then I would be all for the defense (change in medium always struck me as good enough), but it isn't.
They paid the mechanical royalties on the score for the music. It's absolutely allowed on that basis.
The whole kerfuffle was with the cover art, which was not licensed, and Jay Meisel has said the he would not license. It's unclear if he would have prevailed in court, but that was potentially far more expensive for both parties than the settlement that wound up happening.
I was referring to the cover art, not the music. In my mind it was a parody of the original and should have been fine. The new cover art fit the transformative definition.
Looking at this case, it really doesn't look like she did much of anything. They are not a new medium and seem quite like a small alteration. If it was a painting of the final origami then I would be all for the defense (change in medium always struck me as good enough), but it isn't.