Copyright Dilemma

What I found interesting from the Owl website was that it mentions section 107 of the Congress of Copyright Act, which I didn't know about. Owl states that- “teachers and students are more protected when using the copyrighted works for classroom assignments, lessons, projects, criticism, comments, news, reporting, teaching scholarship or research.” This gives teachers and students options for exploring different copyrighted material, but what about everyone else? Don’t individuals who want to use copyright materials for expansion of ideas and knowledge have the right to have further understanding of a particular subject?

"Courts often favor uses that transform the copyrighted work into something new by adding criticism or commentary to change the meaning or message of the original. Educational use is protected to allow creativity and intellectual expression," (quote from owl) On YouTube I have seen videos that do the exact same thing. People post the original movies adding their own commentary, and allowing others to comment on the film. There are also blogs where individuals criticize a piece of writing, adding their own interpretations about the text. If these "amateurs" are following the same guideline as students and teachers, then they shouldn't be penalized.

Owl gives advice, saying that Internet users should stay on the safe side by only using a small chunk (10%) of any media. I do believe this is fair, considering that the artists are sharing their work with the Internet Universe. But here comes the tricky part, though the available pieces can be used, sometimes you can only have them for a short period of time. This makes me think about the Terms of Use page that appears when you want to install software or download a copyrighted image. It seems to be presented in small font, and the sentences are so close together and go on for 2-3 pages.

Living in such a fast paced society where time is limited, individuals are so eager to use the copyrighted work that they automatically agree to the terms, not noticing the “temporary use,” phrase. Maybe if the ‘Terms of Use’ should specify the important details earlier on in a shorter format, so the conditions can be presented clear to the user. I know that there are probably bloggers out there who have images posted beyond the time limit permitted, due to the lack of information.

It seems like a catch 22, that only one group of people have access to materials when others don’t. As long as amateurs use the copyrighted media for non-profit purposes and don’t exploit the artist’s work, is it necessary for individuals to go through such a grueling process?

There seems to be so many rules and regulations when dealing with the issue of copyrighted work. Yet, it does protect artists and their assets, from those who make it tough on everyone, when using other’s art for self-gain.