Not having the same rights as everyone else is itself a harm. Whether the
person would have actually exercised them or not is not relevant. They're
deserved regardless.
Our opinions diverge here. If the public does not need/want to modify the
work --- only artists do (again, the hairdresser can be a music artist in her
free time, she is not acting as one when running her haircutting business)
--- then the freedoms of the public are not harmed when it is not authorized
to modify the work. Here is the "distinction".
Letting artists reuse previous works allows to produce new works (mesh-like),
what is good for society as a whole. But I see no emergency. Granting a
five or ten-year monopoly (for the artists who want it) after the publication
of a work may help the Arts more: it gives other opportunities to live from
one's art (selling copies, rights to reuse commercially, to include in a
movie, ...). Beside live performances, most artistic works generate money in
that way, and only during the few years following the publication. So,
reducing the copyright would not make those current "business models"
disappear, whereas a 0-year term would. And after the 5 or 10-year term, the
work enter the mesh and help other artists in the way you describe it.
Again, I am talking about including a photograph's picture in a news article,
a music in an advertisement, ... or simply, and more commonly, commercial
redistribution of exact copies. I am not talking about original works
(including mash-ups and remixes) that reuse previous works. Copyright should
never go in their way. In particular, whoever wants to draw new episodes of
"Mimi and Eunice" should always be able to do so: previous drawings are not
even copied! Only used for inspiration. I even doubt such an activity would
infringe the existing copyright law. But it may depend on the country.
