If the alterations are substantial, then it's a derivative work. If it's in any way derivative, the author has complete authority over the new work. It is outside the domain of compulsory licenses at this point.
Well, parody, while derivative, certainly is not subject to the control of the original author (remember the Luke Skyywalker case).
I think the courts should have a very liberal definition of what is transformative -- the permissions culture has gone way way too far (this infects both civil and criminal law in the USA and Europe).
Sure, parody is fair-use as per Justice Story, but that's where this all gets gray. You can claim fair-use, but unless it's quite obviously a parody or educational, etc., you're going to have a tough time if someone has a mind to sue.
What about works that are inspired or influenced by other works? Nearly all works are. In some homeopathic sense they might be derivative. I assume there's a grey area between that and clearly derivative works.
