Meanwhile, vidding's academics/advocates advance a narrative of vidding aimed at outside audiences that privileges the transformative dimension of vids and constructs a canon of vids selected and presented precisely for their value in illustrating claims of transformativity. At what point does this emphasis on transformativeness -- and perhaps specifically those modes and forms of transformation most easily recognizable to non-fannish audiences -- filter back into the broader vidding community and get taken up and internalized, influencing which vids and vidders are valued most, potentially shaping the overall aesthetics and discourse around vidding?

Possibly I am being pollyanna about this, but I would be extremely surprised if the way academic and/or legal arguments are made about vidding has much of an impact on actual vids at all. I would argue that academia and the discussions of IP/fair use have had a tremendous impact on the way vids are distributed, and on the breadth of their audience. But so far they haven't had much, if any, impact on their actual aesthetics. The few vidders I know who approach their work with these factors in mind might make a meta vid as a result, but it's not like that's all they will do from now on.

And these discussions are even less likely to reach vidders who operate outside of the traditional vidding community.

My question would seem to imply that transformation as a value isn't already woven into the fabric of vidding culture.

Which vidding culture do you mean? (:

I think that it absolutely is within some communities, and in different ways. Older vidders rooted in the traditional vidding community might be said to privilege transformation of the story itself (i.e., presenting canonically straight/ambiguous characters as in mad slashy love with one another), whereas the newer crop of vidders that have joined the community (handily represented by The Fourth Wall) are highly invested in transformation of the discourse, to use Tisha's narrative theory framing. This group likes to use lots of spectacular effects, use of outside source, and generally tweak the original source material out of all recognition visually -- often on a story level, as well.

And then there are all the other communities of vidders that I don't know about and therefore can't hazard a guess.

I do wonder if the imperative of framing fair use argument has the potential to shift (or transform?) the meanings and values that have developed within vidding culture, emphasizing some while downplaying others. That is, that the rhetoric of transformativeness and the associated legal framework of copyright law and fair use is exerting a certain gravitational pull on how to think and talk about vids which may distort or displace other frameworks.

Again, I'd be very surprised if this happened. I think if it were likely, we'd be seeing it already.

I feel a bit odd saying this, but it kind of reminds me of the attempts by TPTB to encourage us to vid "their way", using their clips and their web-based software and competing for their prizes, etc. What it boils down to is that most vidders who self-identify as such are not interested in vidding by someone else's rules. They may or may not embrace their community's preferred aesthetic traditions, but they certainly aren't going to change their art to fit some monolithic concept of what it should be. Most of us are too stubborn and have too much grumpy love for what we do to change it to fit some pre-defined parameters that might help us evade legal hassles. Many more of us are ignorant of those parameters, or just don't care.