None of that actually happened because people learned to be skeptical, and to care about who took the photo, the chain of custody, and the controls to prevent digital alteration.
Maybe we need something similar but more rigorous for video. The camera itself could encode a PKI signature in every frame of the original. If subsequent edits preserve frames as is, then the viewer could determine how many frames were cut or duplicated.
If subsequent edits crop, recolor or otherwise alter the frames, that editor could encode its own digital signature so the viewer could judge how much to trust their edits.
Is there evidence that deepfake videos will be worse than photos? My (naive) sense is that even for an AI, editing a photo will always be easier than editing a video with sound.
If Photoshop and deep-fake images aren't a problem, shouldn't we be less concerned about video?
This may be true in courts of law, but it absolutely is not when it comes to general public consumption of pictures.
The 9/11 Tourist Guy picture that duped a lot of people 18 years ago looks like a ridiculous MS paint edit today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_guy