Copyright Laws or Don't Lawyers have better things to do with their time

After reading the articles on Copyright laws and Fair Use I can say that I am no closer to understanding any of it then I was before when I was pleasantly ignorant to most of it. Of course, now I am extremely worried that where I am using my words but if they are similiar to those of someone else then I might end up getting sued.
As a follow up to reading these articles which I would recommend to anyone suffering from a serious case of sleep apathy, we were asked to about a specific situation. The example that we were given and I must admit here that most of the words that will follow will not be my own is that, "if someone takes 3 copyright protected images and mashes them together to create a new image but the previous pieces are easily recognized for their original work." We were then asked to answer a several questions starting with, "Is this legal based on fair use?"
Since the articles we read shared both fact about the copyright laws as well as some common myths that manner teachers believed I must say I more then a little bit confused. On one hand I want to suggest that not only has the person broke the laws of copyrighting but they actually have done it three times because they did not ask for permission to use these images.
However, on the other hand they took only what they needed and don't seem to be using the images in way that damages it's commercial value. Templeton states with regards to the fair use that, "Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations." They also don't seem to be using it for any financial gain for themselves. However, this may only affect how much they can be sued for if indeed they are breaking copy right laws.
Based on the latter line of thinking I am going to suggest that this is legal based on fair use. Of course, if you ask me again in 10 minutes I may end up changing my answer and I would strongly recommend that you pay the $200 to consultant a lawyer who would gladly tell you what his fee would be to insure you that you have broken no copyright laws.
The next question we were asked to answer was, "Does the creator have copyright protection?" Now, if this is legal based on fair use and remember I have not consultated a lawyer on this matter then the creator should be protected by copyright. After all, my words here are all copyrighted without my having to do anything or at least that is what I understand from the Templeton article when discusses his first copyright myth, "in the USA, almost everything created privately and originally after April 1st, 1989 is copyrighted and protected whether it has a notice or not.
The next question we are asked is, "Who then really owns the 'new' version of the content since it was based on previous works?" Well without any real logic at work here other then following my current line of thought it would seem that this 'new' version would belong to it's new creator.
Next you ask us, "Does the creator of the old content own it?" This begins to confuse me even more because my original understanding was that these 3 images that were mashed together came from 3 different works meaning that there would actually be 3 other people besides our new creator that we would be answering that question for. However, following my potentially misguided line of thought if the new creator owns this content then none of the original (be it 1 or 3) people would have he right to ownership.
The final question we are asked to ponder is, "Can someone even illegally obtain and re-use the content for their own purposes and then claim copyright protection?" Again from my minimal understanding of these articles and I hope that my sincerity won't be counted against me as I would understand it, yes, a person could do this. However, in doing so they bring to light the fact that they have actually broken the copyright laws and might end up finding themselves in the courtroom being sued.
I don't feel that I am the only person who is confused by this law and it's very vague definitions. I say this because of these 4 quotes from educators who were interviewed in the article "The Cost of Copyright Confusion for Media Literacy." "If I knew what the actual laws were, I would probably be more conservative." "I've learned not to ask about it." "Most people are oblivious to the rules -- this can create a paranoid environment for instructors." Then there is my favorite one which says, "On this topic, ignorance is bliss."
So what do I think you ask? Do you really want to know? Well to keep things short I must say I agree with Jonathan Zittrain. He states that, "Almost all of us who study and write about the law of cyberspace agree that copyright law is a big mess."
The thing that bugs me is that copyright law may be indirectly costing us all without us even knowing. I'll use the example of one of my high school friends brother. He is an actor and has been on many TV shows. He was also the lead in a movie that I don't wish to name here for I would be worried about copyright issues. (Ok I'm sorry if my sarcasm has gotten annoying at this point but perhaps it may be proving a point) Now he got paid a fair amount of money by the movie production company to do this movie as did everyone else involved in it's production. Obviously, the movie production company hopes that the movie will make enough in the theaters to cover their costs and then some. After that they will create video tapes and DVD's of the movie. It may even end up on regular tv or a movie channel. However, it is not all profit for the movie company because my friends brother makes a royalty on all these things. I am sure many other actors from the movie also are getting a royalty as well. That being said the movie production company has to charge more for it's rights which will effect the price of the video tapes and the DVD's. As for viewing it on tv or a movie channel these higher viewing rights fees are going to cause the channels to charge more for commercial advertising. Since these products have to pay more for this commercial advertising they are going to need to raise their product prices. All this leads to you and I paying more for the things we need.
Ok, now your thinking that's way out there but if he was paid a fair amount to do the movie with the movie production company having no right to ask for money back if the movie bombs don't you think that is enough?
I could most definitely go on and off into many different tangents but I guess I need to wrap this up and put a bow on it. To do that I am going to say that as far as copyrighting goes I am going to do as much as I can without trying to use other peoples material. However, if I purchase a sports related video that I feel would be beneficial for one of my teams to watch I will not hesitate to show it to them. If I want my teams to watch game footage then I will make sure that we watch live footage so that I would not have to worry about the copyright laws. Finally, if I felt it necessary to get my message across to my students or team that I use the words of someone else then I would not hesitate to do so.