I don't see how. From the publisher's point of view, it's completely legit: A video that mixes public domain imagery with original additions. Any news org that covered the landing without including some of NASA's public domain images or video would have everyone (rightly!) saying "Their Mars coverage sucks!"
Even if they don't have original additions, it's in the public domain; publishers can do what they want with it, including merely slapping their watermark in the corner and uploading as-is.
I'd say that nobody's really "at fault;" rather, the widespread availability of technology to easily and cheaply download, remix, upload, and stream video is presenting new use cases which our existing notions of content ownership simply haven't had to deal with before.
The solution will be through some mix of better technology (i.e. smarter scanning algorithms), better modeling of the problem domain (maybe the next version of YouTube's Content ID program will address the issue of situations like this), and changing social and legal norms.
In the long term, I believe that one day, people, businesses, laws, and private agreements like ToS will work out an equilibrium where expectations of ownership and use are clear to everyone, penalties are considered reasonable and proportionate to offenses, are enforced consistently with few false positives or negatives, and people mostly manage to get along -- in contrast to the current free-for-all environment where none of these things are true.
Unfortunately, "the long term" may be very long -- I'd say 30-60 years. Also, while my assessment may sound positive on first reading, the previous paragraph actually leaves substantial space for very distopian scenarios -- where (for example) permanent ownership is considered reasonable, fair use no longer exists, the expectation is that copyright violators will be jailed, financially ruined, and/or permabanned from the Internet, those penalties are swiftly and surely enforced by extremely invasive monitoring of all computer activity, and anyone who tries to make waves about the situation is dismissed by the media establishment as a fringe lunatic, and can't effectively organize due to the intense restrictions on the Internet.
> I don't see how. From the publisher's point of view, it's completely legit: A video that mixes public domain imagery with original additions. Any news org that covered the landing without including some of NASA's public domain images or video would have everyone (rightly!) saying "Their Mars coverage sucks!"
Why does the stuff they upload to YouTube's content violation detector include public domain content? It doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, exactly the same as what they broadcast.
Exactly - publishers shouldn't upload and claim content with public domain footage in it; they should specifically remove any videos with content not originally produced by the TV station from the CID system. But that takes work, and generally people just shovel content from TV -> Web, let CID make the decisions, and move on. It's one mouse click to turn off CID matching, really easy.
I don't see how. From the publisher's point of view, it's completely legit: A video that mixes public domain imagery with original additions. Any news org that covered the landing without including some of NASA's public domain images or video would have everyone (rightly!) saying "Their Mars coverage sucks!"
Even if they don't have original additions, it's in the public domain; publishers can do what they want with it, including merely slapping their watermark in the corner and uploading as-is.
I'd say that nobody's really "at fault;" rather, the widespread availability of technology to easily and cheaply download, remix, upload, and stream video is presenting new use cases which our existing notions of content ownership simply haven't had to deal with before.
The solution will be through some mix of better technology (i.e. smarter scanning algorithms), better modeling of the problem domain (maybe the next version of YouTube's Content ID program will address the issue of situations like this), and changing social and legal norms.
In the long term, I believe that one day, people, businesses, laws, and private agreements like ToS will work out an equilibrium where expectations of ownership and use are clear to everyone, penalties are considered reasonable and proportionate to offenses, are enforced consistently with few false positives or negatives, and people mostly manage to get along -- in contrast to the current free-for-all environment where none of these things are true.
Unfortunately, "the long term" may be very long -- I'd say 30-60 years. Also, while my assessment may sound positive on first reading, the previous paragraph actually leaves substantial space for very distopian scenarios -- where (for example) permanent ownership is considered reasonable, fair use no longer exists, the expectation is that copyright violators will be jailed, financially ruined, and/or permabanned from the Internet, those penalties are swiftly and surely enforced by extremely invasive monitoring of all computer activity, and anyone who tries to make waves about the situation is dismissed by the media establishment as a fringe lunatic, and can't effectively organize due to the intense restrictions on the Internet.