If fair use meant the same thing as new work, then yes certainly.

For now: https://mimiandeunice.com/2011/07/29/fair-use/

> The only thing the public domain seems to benefit is the ability to redistribute the work without iterating upon it in a way that makes it take on a new meaning.

No... fair use doesn't work like you think it does and it's a only a defense that has to be tested in court where you'll be up against the legal team of a billion dollar media industry that has connections and ties at the highest levels of the justice system

Once something is in the public domain you can use it to create new works that are completely transformative without risking losing everything in a lawsuit.

Vast amounts of new and truly innovative creative works are prevented from being created because of our existing copyright laws. Music is the worst at this where just a couple of notes being too similar to some other song can cause you lose everything. People have lost fortunes just for writing a new and unique song that just happened to be in the same genre as another song. (https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/blurred-lines-can-you-copy-a...)

Look at what one artist had to do (and pay) to get her film seen by the public at all: https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sita-sings-the-copyright-bl...

If those songs had been fully in the public domain, her amazing and transformative film (which I'd recommend to anyone) would have had no issues at all. How many artists aren't willing or able to go through what she did and just give up? How many musicians are writing songs that will never see the light of day because of fear that some song they've never heard before will be used to take everything from them? They can sign over all their rights to the RIAA and hope that's enough to protect them, or they risk being sued.

The public domain is critical for artists to be free to create entirely new works and build on old ones to create new works as well.

> For example, under copyright, you can't take Mickey Mouse, throw sunglasses on him, then re-release all of the existing work, because it's not protected by the fair use clause. However, if you were to create something demonstrably different to the point where it does qualify for fair use, then suddenly you've created new media that you have the copyright for and can do whatever you wish (including sell it; whether or not it's used for commercial purposes is only a factor in fair use determinations, it doesn't instantly disqualify it for fair use).

Your understanding of fair use seems quite flawed.

Tell me, have you _ever_ seen Mickey Mouse used for _anything_ even remotely interesting that wasn't made by Disney?

One of the most well-known characters of all time, if fair use wasn't too restrictive, there'd be some derivative works out there, right?

The reason you don't is because what's allowed by fair use is _very_ limited and ambiguous (ie dependent on how much money you want to spend on a lawyer to defend yourself).

You can do reviews of shows/movies, you could probably do a really obvious parody, you could report on some Mickey Mouse news, and that's essentially it. Anything else will get you sued _hard_ and you will not win.

> Tell me, have you _ever_ seen Mickey Mouse used for _anything_ even remotely interesting that wasn't made by Disney?

No problem, just find and buy a copy of The Mickey Mouse Make-It Book [1]. It contains step-by-step instructions for making Mickey Mouse puppets and then encourages you to have fun with your creations. Straight from Walt Disney Production's mouth.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12114271-the-mickey-mous...

> Straight from Walt Disney Production's mouth.

Kind of the point? It's published by Disney.

Sure you can make all kinds of stuff for yourself, you just can't share them in any real way.

Most culture throughout human history has been iterative instead of anthologic. Often times the stories, myths, legends, and folk tales we have are because multiple people added to the story after the original author ended it to add a piece that relates to their own time or understanding. They didn't just say, throw sunglasses and a banana hammock on Beowulf and now he's Bae-o-wulf, original character, do no steal. The story of King Arthur for example has three different origins between the changeling child, the sword in the stone, and the commoner to king stories because for the longest time King Arthur's Court started in medias res. Then there's the fact that Sir Lancelot was a later addition to the mythology of King Arthur, appearing almost six hundred years after the popular stories first appeared in public circulation as a cultural response to the rise of the idea of courtly love. And the story of Sir Gawain And The Green Knight itself was a later addition as well to epitomize the growing ideal of chivalry. Even Alfred Lord Tennyson was adding to the story over twelve hundred years after it first appeared in response to gothic literature and it's focus on the beauty in decay and nihilism. To put it one way, Lancelot, Gawain, and Elaine were essentially fanfiction to the existing mythologies that became canon.

And the truest form of that iterative culture that still exists and continues building the mythologies or characters of these stories is fan fiction. People adding onto the characters and history of the fictional world, finding what works and discarding what doesn't, and slowly weaving together a full and rich story. This is in stark contrast to anthology style works such as traditional superhero comic books, where the creators work under direction and the rules of the world and the personas of it's characters are often not allowed to change. Unlike Guinevere who is eventually swayed from Arthur into courtly love with Lancelot, Lois Lane must always love Superman for example.

> For example, under copyright, you can't take Mickey Mouse, throw sunglasses on him, then re-release all of the existing work

You mean, exactly what Disney did? Create movies based on existing works (Brothers Grimm etc.) while ignoring copyright (Bambi) or against the direct wishes of the original author (can't remember which one right now)