One of the videos mentioned: "Speeding Trailer with 50,000lb of Melons Rolls Over & Rips Open"[1] It shows the practical problems of uprighting a trailer that's torn at the seams. There wasn't enough structural integrity left for a simple crane lift. So they needed inflatable air bags, wooden blocks, and multiple cranes to get the thing upright. Then they moved it a bit with the cranes to unblock a lane of the freeway ramp. Then it took tens of people from CALTRANS to unload 50,000 pounds of melons so the damaged trailer could be removed empty as one piece.

Everything that could identify the trucking company or even the source of the melons was blurred out, which is a lot of work for the towing company guy who does these videos between tow jobs.

There's no copyright issue; all pictures were taken by employees of the towing company.

There's no trademark issue; showing a logo for identification purposes is legal.

There's no customer confusion issue; it's clear that the towing company isn't in the melon business.

There's no trade secret issue; this was a very public event, on public property, with TV news coverage.

There's no intent to defame issue; the towing company was there because the California Highway Patrol called them to clean up the mess, not because someone didn't like the guy who rolled over his truck.

There's no right of publicity issue for a wrecked truck.

There's no ownership right to the video because the trucker didn't contract with the towing company; the California Highway Patrol did. (The trucker will be getting a big bill from the state.)

There's no issue of "interfering with police" - the cops called in the towing company and guided them to the scene.

There's nothing in IP law that applies here.

Just fear of YouTube.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1M5RnQlSJ58

That instance sounds like a clear cut abuse then, why isn’t a fine being sought as allowed?