achoo! (i just sneezed and can't think of a title)

other people have touched upon this in Vaidhyanathan's work, but one of the things he talks about that i find really interesting is how people are taking films and creating their own edits and interpretations, like the Phantom Edit, or Puchkov's goblin dubs. What I liked about this was the idea that usually when people think about art, but particularly with film since production is such a process, what people view is often seen as a finished product. With what these folks are doing, they're asserting that art is never finished, and can always be reinterpreted, retinkered with, etc.

One theme we've talked about in class while discussing authorship, is one does the role of intention play. Does it matter what the author intends at all? As Vaidhyanathan writes, "an author cannot control how a character, idea or plot will be read, refasioned, or criticized".
What I'm curious is does intention matter in when people alter the works of others? Things like Phantom Edit, shows fans taking ownership of the material they care about, or offer alternative views an interpretations of this work. This seems to be part of a creative discussion of sorts. However, later on in the chapter Vaidhyanathan talks about CleanFlicks, where they edit what they view as offensive material from mainstream Hollywood fare. Is this a case of people trying to create their own artistic creations or is this just censorship? If the Phantom Edit cut out stuff because it offered a different view of the Star Wars universe that seemed less shitty than the Lucas film, while CleanFlicks cut out material because it's seen as offensive, is one art while the other is censorship? Should the actions be considered on the same level or does intention matter at all?