> 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.