This way of framing the issue is well-meaning but misguided.

Copyright agreements are historical, not logical. (The reasons why Warhol gets away with it, and the Beastie Boys could make Paul´s Boutique, are historical, they are works to which the legal and profit-making entities in the space had to respond and adjust, constructing a framework for exploiting this type of “asset” that was beneficial to them.) The “protection” of artistic works have more to do with plausability and the practical realities of the means of distribution than with any coherent ideas about what is being made or sold, and the more you see people trying to call everything “assets” so as to fit it in with some easy industrial metaphor the more sure you can be that the terms and arguments in use are not generalizable.
Any musician with a sense of humility (about 2%!) can explain to you how songs by Bob Dylan or the Rolling Stones are “mashups” of Chuck Berry or Muddy Waters tracks. Following the implications of the articles in the blog, why can´t I take a beatles track, “improve” it by doing a slightly better eq on the Bass, and display it for whoever wants to see my “improved art” on the website, not for sale but with the benefits that accrue from offering valube content, free or otherwise?
When talking about “precise definitions”, it´s usually good to be able to pin down the meaning (and practical mechanism for identifying) at least one or two of the terms in the definition. I would love to see a strong definition that could be applied in practice for “enhanced art” “elevating the subject” (this presumably means that any art which discredits any brand is not protected – no counterculture art then under this framework?) “aimed artistically”. I doubt I will see one, and that´s probably the conclusion that these Executives come to.
Creating and regulating remuneration guidelines based on an idea of intent to create enhanced artistic experience! It´s absurd enough to make a good artistic or comedic product itself! – There would be some great trials!.

There is an old story my dad used to tell me about an angry chef who complained to a wise mayor that a homeless guy was standing outside his restaurant every evening and sniffing the delicious smells coming out of the window. The story goes that the chef demanded that the man be whipped for appropriating his food, and the wise mayor immediately accepted but with the condition that he can only whip the man´s shadow.

You are appealing for a wise mayor, someone or institution who can distinguish between different types of use. We have the “fair use” concept in England for books, and i don´t think anyone can deny that it would be a great step forward to “get real” and accept behaviours that are not damaging to anyone´s business model and furthermore are impossible to regulate. But is this a realistic appeal to make? It´s realistic if you can define a fair use doctrine which can distinguish between the “artists” and people who are just using loopholes to profit from. I´ll give you an example: there is alot of music online which is posted as a video, with a slideshow of photos (sometimes relevent to the song, sometimes not) as the visuals. Under your supposed precise definition this would be an “enhanced” experience – you get the music and something more – but it´s inescapable that if you have access to this asset you have access to the song – you own the song and don´t need to buy it. There are ten million other configurations of media assets now possible. What you are seeing in the crazy lawsuits are not corporations defending their rights in something, but defending their right to defend their rights. They (probably correctly) can see that the end result of relaxing into a non-psycho nazi stance (which you are right to claim is crazy when you look at each instance, each lawsuit) is the erosion of their position. What you are asking them to do is accept their new inferior status in a changing-dying industry landscape. You say the execs are naive and crazy not to accept that teens with this technology are going to do this behaviour. If thats true, aren´t you being equally naive about the behaviour that companies and for-profit entities and their legal departments do? They agressively protect their claims as far as they can for as long as they can. They will stop doing this not in response to arguments about being reasonable or about adapting to change. We need stronger arguments that stimulate them to change direction or at least style.. what could those arguments be? -