That seems absurd. I just reject their request to fetch some _additional_ information, I don't modify the "text of their request" as such. If that breaks their sites (as it usually does), that's their problem - not mine.
I had a neighbor who was sent an invoice, he had cancelled his internet connection 3 months ago and was later told they need a cancellation request in writing. so he sent an equivalent invoice to them asking for rent for their modem which was consuming place in his house. he did not have to pay in the end.
It's the same reason US privacy regulation is doomed to failure unless it frames consent the same way the GDPR did. Not merely as something that is given once (and then vectoralized/sold), but rather something that needs to be given on an ongoing basis and can be withdrawn at any time.
Copyright is about distribution.
"A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”."
A bit more nuanced: not loading in the ad on a news site is akin to ripping out and throwing away the subscription card in the magazine. The contents of each might be subject to copyright, but that doesn't invalidate my right to separate them once delivered to me.