Aatube

there's some distance between just having a (transactional) relationship and a true-love relationship where "I like you for who you are and the comfort of being around you, and you feel the same" fits in, though

The Great Gatsby. Its last page makes a killing, pun intended.

The MIT is what's called a permissive license.

Copyright

Permission is hereby granted , free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense , and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

That's the entirety of the text. You can do pretty much anything as long as you make sure the first line is still visible somewhere (and if you're not incorporating/relicensing it into GPL, you have to include the MIT license text as well; I'm less sure about how this parenthetical works but I do know an MIT project relicensed to GPL needs not include the MIT text), which in GPL it is.

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/mit/

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#%3A%7E%3Atext=Expat)-,This%20is%20a%20lax%2C%20permissive%20non%2Dcopyleft%20free%20software%20license%2C%20compatible%20with%20the%20GNU%20GPL.,-Some

I fuzzily remember that it had happened

how did news of your union spread/how'd you reach so many people to join?
what has your union been doing to support you since you were fired?

Only if you do separate them and do not distribute the copyrighted image.

Thus it doesn't apply to OP's examples, that is my point.

(FWIW you can make a copy of a copyrighted image to extensively critique it as long as the copy is not unreasonably detailed.)

proprietary tools or programming languages

Could you give an example?

Then your criteria isn't "noncommercial but "noncommercial and transformative" ("the first factor, the purpose and character of the use, disfavored fair use because although the use was noncommercial, it was also not transformative"), which OP's examples aren't. Using film music for your videos isn't transformative. Law doesn't have a "I didn't distribute my video" exception either unless that's how the music was licensed to you.

Your phrasing sounds like fair use is the default case for non-commercial when really it just makes it "more likely" legal. The most obvious example is Hachette v. Internet Archive. US copyright is so pro-business that you never know until the gavel is down.

https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Courts+look+at+how+the+party+claiming+fair+use+is+using+the+copyrighted+work%2C+and+are+more+likely+to+find+that+nonprofit+educational+and+noncommercial+uses+are+fair :

This does not mean, however, that all nonprofit education and noncommercial uses are fair and all commercial uses are not fair;

Edit:

Until the judge says otherwise

Well, yeah, according to the criteria I've detailed with sources above.

As @finitebanjo@feddit.online quoted, fair use only applies

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

Of the four criteria for fair use, the first one is pretty much that it should be one of those purposes. (https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/#%3A%7E%3Atext=Courts+look+at+how+the+party+claiming+fair+use+is+using+the+copyrighted+work%2C+and+are+more+likely+to+find+that+nonprofit+educational+and+noncommercial+uses+are+fair. details these criteria. The first criterion also includes favoring saying that really transformative and creative use is fair use hence sometimes sampling doesn't need permission.) IANAL but this is what we see in case law and case law doesn't seem to support a noncommercial personal use exemption, even if undistributed. (to answer OP's question, it's technically illegal but nobody gets sued for it because 1. nobody knows if you don't punish your crime 2. lawyers cost money so why bother such a PR scandal)

Here's a good Tom Scott video covering the allowed purposes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jwo5qc78QU

Ringtones and notifications are different because they are legal public performance of something still copyrighted: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/10/court-rules-phones-ringing-public-dont-infringe-co