In a broad sense, copyright limits the commons, that is, the materials that are available for everyone to use. In the US, for example, the frequent periodic term extensions mean that nothing has entered the public domain since 1989, and nothing will until 2019.
In more specific instances, copyright law is often seen to stop people from building off of existing works to create something new: you can't hear a piece of music and decide to remix it, you can't photograph a painting, you can't reenact famous movie scenes in a play, and so on. This is not entirely true, however: you just can't do these things without permission.
If getting permission were straightforward, there might be less complaint about the stifling effects of copyright. However, rightsholders are often difficult or impossible to identify, locate, and negotiate with. The "remix culture" today wants to do something creative right now, and doesn't want to bother with chasing down fifteen rightsholders just to do their fanvid, which they're not making any money off of anyway.
Some remixes can arguably be defended as fair use (the Donald Duck/Glenn Beck video is certainly cultural critique, and the earlier "Boulevard of Broken Songs" mashup is demonstrably a commentary on the banality of Pop Music), and typically the more original content goes into the new work, the less likely you are to be accused of infringement. Still, many creators are unwilling to push the envelope of fair use, for fear of becoming the target of a lawsuit.
Ironically, the goal of copyright law is to encouragecreativity.
It's possible for school uniforms to limit self-expression through clothing choice. However, creativity is multifaceted and can be expressed through other means such as art, music, or writing. Ultimately, the impact of school uniforms on creativity may vary for different individuals.
some feel it can stifle creativity and art should be shared and free to everyone
Arguably, legal boilerplate could be said not to have the element of creativity required for copyright protection. If you have specific concerns on this, it might be worth your time to contact an experienced copyright lawyer.
Anyone can create a work of sufficient creativity and have it automatically protected by copyright.
The smell in the room was sure to stifle them. They tried to stifle his progress by putting more obstacles in the way.
Works of sufficient creativity are automatically protected by copyright as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium.
Any work of sufficient creativity is protected by copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium.
It's unlikely that a disclaimer or other boilerplate could be protected, because one of the requirements for protection is originality or creativity.
There's really only one "cause" of copyright: the desire to encourage creativity by rewarding it.
A work of sufficient creativity is automatically protected by copyright as soon as it is fixed in a tangible medium.
Copyright and Creativity in the Digital Age - 2008 was released on: USA: 20 June 2008 (Detroit Windsor International Film Festival)
it protect the rights of authors creativity