> So there is some precedent that courts do look at the "utility" or "sufficiently transformative" aspect when weighing copyright infringement.

Curiously, from the article, copyright infringement is not alleged:

> As a final note, the complaint alleges a violation under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for removal of copyright notices, attribution, and license terms, but conspicuously does not allege copyright infringement.

Perhaps the plaintiffs are trying to avoid exactly this prior law?