Should readers get permission to make podfic?

[jesse_the_k]

While I just argued that the act of podficcing adds "fannish value" to a work, I'm unsure that readers must obtain an OK from the writer to make a recording.

Since I'm a newbie, I did some research. While I don't think it's possible for a podfic to fundamentally change a source in the same way, I started with remixes, since there's the same "permission" issue there. It seems most remix challenges are based on a mutual remix: by participating in writing, each fan also permits their work to be remixed (with one "safe" work held inviolate).

The Fanlore Wiki told me:

 begin quote 
Though remixing in both fanfiction and vidding has become enormously popular, not all fans embrace the concept. [... snip ...] Though some fans feel any story is fair game for remixing, others believe that permission should be gained from the author first before using their work as a jumping-off point. Many fans feel it's hypocritical to reuse the original creations of the copyright holders in the canon while protesting that anyone should be allowed to remake their fanworks.
 quote ends 

Current metadata don't state whether the podfic's reader has the writer's permission. Would the absence, permission or refusal of writer's OK change how you'd choose or read podfics?

Comments

[zvi]

My experience with standards of politeness in fandom is that they are often understood to allow the fewest possible number of speakers and promote behavioral conformity.

I've also had read some arguments (none of which I can find at the moment), which persuasively make the argument that the promulgation of some sorts of free licenses (specifically, CC) which explicitly permit activities which are legal regardless (specifically, transformative work making commentary on the original), puts a negative pressure on the actions when taken towards those works for which the action would still be legal, but no explicit license has been given.

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm.

Your second paragraph is looking, to me, like an issue separate and apart from the original question, but before even I try to address it, I want to make sure I understand, because this phrase

"puts a negative pressure on the actions when taken towards those works for which the action would still be legal"

is confusing me.

Are you suggesting
a) the absence of explicit refusal should indicate the presence of acquiescence?
b) the absence of explicit refusal does indicate the presence of acquiescence?


signed,
lr