Copyright notice taken too far?

From Legal Lessons Learned:

So I'm reading a National Geographic booklet aimed at elementary school students . . I see a picture of a paramecium, labeled 'Paramecium x110." Next to it there's the following chunk of text:

'Check it Out

Suppose you have permission to photocopy the picture of Paramecium, and you enlarge it to twice its size. Would the magnification of x110 still be correct? Explain.'

The author of the post points out that the phrase "suppose you have permission to photocopy the picture" is a little over the top for a theoretical experiment aimed at elementary students, stating:

I imagine the writer put it more simply before a lawyer or editor touched it up. Because we wouldn't want 4th graders running around with enlarged b&w photocopies of a paramecium taken from Visuals Unlimited. Knowing kids, they might digitize the photocopies and post them on the internet[], or store them on their iPods. How would VU make money THEN?

I also imagine copyright-conscious kiddies, attentive to the wording's specific subtext, enchanted by the possibilities of a Creative Commons future. "Suppose you have permission..." Wow! Suppose I have permission! It's telling me to imagine a wondrous world where I'm legally allowed to photocopy this image I hold in my hands! What a spectacular sight that would be! Then I could perform ALL KINDS of measurements on it! But, aw shucks, for now I'm just stuck with my dreams.

The author of this post fails to mention something that struck me as particularly interesting. 17 USC § 107 deals with the "fair use" exception to copyright protection. Specifically, it addresses copies made for teaching. While the four factors listed must be considered, I'm convinced that a student making a copy to measure magnification would fall squarely within fair use.