>She even has the physical copy of one Apollo 12 scene which she telecine'd to digital,
Okay, so that's supposed to make a legitimacy claim. I've had arguments with the internet claiming that I made upres copies of digibetas when photographic evidence showing the 16mm prints on the telecine, but the internet still disagreed. So I KNOW the pain.
However, let's say that you, me, and Dupree all have a print of the Apollo 12 scene. We all pay to have the things done to have it available as a digital file, and eventually we all post our independent videos to YT. If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? At that point, what's an algo to do?
> If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged?
Flagged for what, exactly? The perceptual hash would show that all three of you uploaded the same video, but not that any those uploads were infringing. Nothing should happen unless someone (either one of you, or another party) tries to claim that they're the copyright holder for that video. Which ought to require at least some hard evidence.
Ideally[0], if that were to happen, YouTube would manually investigate the claim to determine whether it was reasonable, and the parties accused of infringement would have a chance to challenge the claim or offer another reason why the uploads are not infringing, such as prior permission or fair use, before anything permanent was done. Since the video is in the public domain, the claim should be rejected and the video marked as public domain in the content database after the investigation to preempt any further false claims.
Of course investigations like this require actual work. It's always going to be easier to just take down the video—especially since they're hosting it for free. Ad revenues won't cover the cost of investigating claims, much less protracted legal fights.
[0] Ideally ideally, copyright would simply be repealed and we'd all be much better off. But short of that…
Okay, so that's supposed to make a legitimacy claim. I've had arguments with the internet claiming that I made upres copies of digibetas when photographic evidence showing the 16mm prints on the telecine, but the internet still disagreed. So I KNOW the pain.
However, let's say that you, me, and Dupree all have a print of the Apollo 12 scene. We all pay to have the things done to have it available as a digital file, and eventually we all post our independent videos to YT. If we did some sort of perceptual hashing to each video, would it not be logical to assume we'd all be flagged? At that point, what's an algo to do?