It's not clear that the Guardian owns the rights to relicense the assets, especially since they apparently were included by accident. If they don't own the lice

It's not clear that the Guardian owns the rights to relicense the assets, especially since they apparently were included by accident. If they don't own the licensing rights then the apparent license would be invalid. So for all practical purposes for third parties that might be interested in using the assets, I think they would have to be considered them improperly licensed regarding this Apache License "release" until The Guardian shows that this is not the case. And given that it was an accident, I don't see why they would do that. [edit: clarity]