How could copyright stifle creativity?

Answer 1

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.