You can license the clips by going to the AP Archive website; e.g., this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjZ6NNLCdio can be licensed from here: http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/c0016a30f75d456abf... (the link was in the description on YouTube).

I assume they stuck with the Standard YouTube License because that lets them keep ownership of the videos and license them out separately under their own terms.

> keep ownership of the videos and license them out separately under their own terms.

The one you link to they surely can't own? 1906 => public domain.

Copyright works in mysterious ways. They probably have copyright on the actual files as well as the product that they created when capturing the analog originals digitally.

Copyright requires creativity; just using a tool to convert from analog to digital and generate files doesn't grant copyright protection, AFAIK.

Intuitively, yes. But unfortunately that doesn't guarantee it to be the case from a legal perspective.

IIRC, US copyright law includes the ambiguous words "slavish copy" with reference to something that would not be copyrightable. For example, the Vatican sold copyright to the imagery that is the restoration of the Sistine chapel roof - self evidently a "slavish copy" by design! - to the company that paid for the restoration, so they could have exclusive rights to sell/license reproductions of this restored imagery. They've never taken anyone to court, (quite possibly because their case is wobbly), but they do assert their rights to this work and try to get people to buy licenses accordingly.

Interesting. In some countries restricting access to the public domain is itself a crime. I wonder if there will ever be a test case here!