

People can give you their best guesses, but without a court case and a ruling it is impossible to say what the answer will be with iron certainty.
My guess, for US law, would be based of the four factor balancing test used in determining fair use. The four factors are the nature of the use, the nature of the copyrighted material, the amount of the copyrighted material used, and the effect of the use on the value of the material.
If you are using the copyrighted works for a non-profit purpose that helps, if you are remixing them that helps, if you are using works that are not violating right of first publishing that helps.
Importantly copyright does not have to be enforced by the holder for them to retain full legal protection. What that means is even if the holder somehow became aware (which honestly is pretty doubtful for such a small individual use), they can simply choose not to pursue the matter. The resources that could go into pursuing a copyright case for such a use are probably going to be a lot more than any gain they’d get. Big IP holders have endless waves of people using their material, and their resources are better spent going after uses that are clearly trying to make or making a profit or distributing their copyrighted works.
The TLDR is yeah sure, it’s probably fine. If you somehow got the evil eye on you, in practical reality the first thing you’d get would be a C&D letter anyway.
That would be an argument made in court, pursuant to the balancing test. You would be arguing that the use wasn’t actually infringement. Thats how fair use is determined.