AP pulls chaser's tornado video

[Ryan McGinnis]

This looks like it sprung out of an issue in another thread, but it seems like a big enough story to post in a new thread:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i5rFFvy1IEn59GLjRC11aBfDqLtAD91QL6H00

Excerpt:

NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press and video services operated by CBS and NBC have pulled video allegedly taken of a tornado in Nebraska last weekend after questions were raised about its authenticity.

A tornado chaser has claimed that the video was a doctored version of pictures he had taken of a twister that touched down four years ago in Rock, Kan.

The AP paid another storm chaser, Andy Fabel, $295 for footage of a tornado that briefly touched down Saturday afternoon near Valentine, Neb. The video was sent Sunday to nearly 2,000 Web sites that subscribe to the AP's Online Video Network, and more than 60 large digital customers that buy AP's online content individually.

I did find a user with that name over at "Associated Content", which is run by the AP. What is Associated Content? Quote:


Associated Content is a platform that enables everyone to publish their content in any format on any topic and then distributes that content to engaged audiences through its website and content partners. Those who contribute to Associated Content's ad-supported collection of original text, video, audio and images gain exposure and often earn cash for their participation.


Since being founded by Luke Beatty in 2005, Associated Content has grown exponentially. Today, with its vast library of unique multimedia content, diverse community of Content Producers and scalable platform, Associated Content provides consumers, brands and publishers with a wide range of quality content.

So it's basically like CNN iReport, only they pay.

[Jim Saueressig]

$295 is a very small amount of money to get paid to commit suicide.....

[Mike Deep]

I'm baffled why someone would torpedo themselves for $300 unless they're not really serious about what they're doing.

[Danny Neal]

That name sounds pretty familiar, so basically it is saying this chaser/person got paid 300 bucks for doctoring someone else' video and passing it on as their own? Seems like a serious chaser wouldn't hang them self in this way.

[Joey Ketcham]

Andy Fabel is a StormTrack member...

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/member.php?u=1733

[Steve Miller OK]

Let's hope if he is proven to be at fault that he will no longer be a ST member.

[Warren Faidley]

I just received a call from Fox News about a story they are working on about fake news pictures and footage. Apparently, due the lack of "good" images from this years major events, the press is being bombarded with images from past years -- being passed off for this year.

The story is set for around 3-3:30 PM EST, today 7-10-08, subject to change as always.

Warren

[MatthewCarman]

Andy Fabel is a StormTrack member...

http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/member.php?u=1733

Wht makes you think he is the same person? His name is Andrew Fabel not Andy Fabel. While it most likely is the same guy I think we should make sure before people hang him to dry.

[Josh Richardson]

Wht makes you think he is the same person? His name is Andrew Fabel not Andy Fabel. While it most likely is the same guy I think we should make sure before people hang him to dry.

Considering his last activity was today and he has yet to say anything in this thread, Im sure its the same guy.:rolleyes:

[Joey Ketcham]

Wht makes you think he is the same person? His name is Andrew Fabel not Andy Fabel. While it most likely is the same guy I think we should make sure before people hang him to dry.

Andy is short for Andrew ya know. Nobody has hung him out to dry, yet, I was merely pointing out the fact that he is a ST member and that maybe he will give his side of the story.

[James Langford]

Apparently, due the lack of "good" images from this years major events, the press is being bombarded with images from past years -- being passed off for this year.
Warren

So, I guess I take issue with that statement. They make it sound like they are the victims, and that we are at fault. Being a photojournalist has got to be a tough business now a days. I see it in my photography business all the time now. No one wants to pay for anything. They all expect to get them for free, or maybe by just mentioning my name in credit for it. I can't count the number of "Hey, can I use this photo and just mention your name with it? Oh, and it's for a 'FOR PROFIT' businesss." emails I get. It's pretty sad, and I'm glad that photography isn't my primary source of revenue.

It's true that the photojournalist was at fault here. But holy cow, $300 for all inclusive rights? That's insane. And they are surprised that they are getting reused stuff?

James

[Jim Saueressig]

It's true that the photojournalist was at fault here. But holy cow, $300 for all inclusive rights? That's insane. And they are surprised that they are getting reused stuff?

James

And until they have to pay dearly for using someone elses photos or videos that one of their "freebies" or "nearly freebies" upload as their own it will only get worse and worse

[Bill Hark]

Actually $300 is what they commonly pay depending on the type of contract and limitations. The price of video in a news distribution setting should be another thread.

As for this case, I don't care if the video was given to them for free. Assuming the facts are as reported, I am very concerned that a "tornado chaser" or storm chaser misrepresented video. That is immoral and probably illegal. If somebody wants to kill their stringer career, that's their own business. Unfortunately, such an incident reflects very poorly upon all chasers that sell video and to a lesser extent on chasers in general.
I occasionally sell video, and I hope the next time that I contact a network, I am not subjected to questions about the authenticity of the video.

Bill Hark

[Billy Griffin]

I recently photographed and videotaped a major news event. Before the station would accept the media, I had to show up IN PERSON, and allow them to view the RAW video and photographs. They then did the editing of the video and a little photo manipulation for better contrast. So basically, I sold the raw media to them. They were very thorough in their review of the media, and explained that their i-witness program was becoming a big joke... people sending in "chain" photographs, etc. etc.

I would suspect that the media will start doing this, or at least I hope so. Checking the authenticity of a video or photo may very well become a full time job for media outlets. It simply clears the air on some things. In fact, the media outlet I sold the video to stated that they very often won't even accept photos, just video.

[nickgrillo]

Does anybody know the name of the chaser that he stole the video from?

[Ryan McGinnis]

Does anybody know the name of the chaser that he stole the video from?

If I had to guess, probably from himself. I think the AP article got it a little wrong -- I don't think he stole another chaser's video. I think he used his own video from his archives and flipped it and sped it up. Again, this is just personal speculation and may not be accurate.

[Mike Hollingshead]

Actually $300 is what they commonly pay depending on the type of contract and limitations. The price of video in a news distribution setting should be another thread.

As for this case, I don't care if the video was given to them for free. Assuming the facts are as reported, I am very concerned that a "tornado chaser" or storm chaser misrepresented video. That is immoral and probably illegal. If somebody wants to kill their stringer career, that's their own business. Unfortunately, such an incident reflects very poorly upon all chasers that sell video and to a lesser extent on chasers in general.
I occasionally sell video, and I hope the next time that I contact a network, I am not subjected to questions about the authenticity of the video.

Bill Hark

I don't think anyone is going to suffer from this. I always hate that whole "fear" that something one does will reflect on the rest. 99% of the time it's not worth it, for several reasons. I knew it would surface in this one soon enough. It's just a good thing most in the world don't act as they fear others will act. We'd all then really have something to worry about.

I don't see anyone selling legit footage suffering. If they have something worth selling, that the news wants, they'll sell it. That or they'll just give it to them I guess!

[Greg Ansel]

If I had to guess, probably from himself. I think the AP article got it a little wrong -- I don't think he stole another chaser's video. I think he used his own video from his archives and flipped it and sped it up. Again, this is just personal speculation and may not be accurate.

In the article it stated that another person said it was their footage, it would be kind of dumb to "out" yourself by saying you stole your own stuff. I looked at the pics, not the footage, and can't be sure it's the same. We should wait to hear what happens before we start the accusations and hangings...again.:rolleyes:

Edit: I saw several pics from the video and they look the same...Still we should hear from both sides.

Edit #2: Sorry Ryan, now that does make more sense that it was his own stuff.

[Jim Saueressig]

In the article it stated that another person said it was their footage, it would be kind of dumb to "out" yourself by saying you stole your own stuff. I looked at the pics, not the footage, and can't be sure it's the same. We should wait to hear what happens before we start the accusations and hangings...again.:rolleyes:

Edit: I saw several pics from the video and they look the same...Still we should hear from both sides.

Lol, that is why I posted this Post (http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showpost.php?p=186136&postcount=21) because who's video it is is still uncertain even if what event it was is not.

[Greg Ansel]

So it sounds like the footage was originally his, but that other people were there and recognized it as being old footage from 2004. That's possible and more probable as an explanation because it would be easier access to the raw footage to doctor/make changes to it. Interesting...

Gas is expensive, $300 helps, a little.

[Ryan McGinnis]

In the article it stated that another person said it was their footage, it would be kind of dumb to "out" yourself by saying you stole your own stuff. I looked at the pics, not the footage, and can't be sure it's the same. We should wait to hear what happens before we start the accusations and hangings...again.:rolleyes:

Edit: I saw several pics from the video and they look the same...Still we should hear from both sides.

I suspect that I know who that "other person" is, and I believe the AP either misunderstood him or her or came to their own conclusions. The video that ran on the AP was very similar to the video of the person who brought this to their attention; however, it's far more likely (given the chaser convergence on that day) that the video submitted was not pirated from another chaser and then post processed to remove trees and add power lines (do you have any idea how much work that is?), and far more likely that it was shot from roughly the same place and time in 2004 as all the other videos that day by the person who submitted it, and then sat in their archival stock for four years before they unearthed it, flipped it, sped it up, and presented it to the AP as new.

Again, going on suspicions. This could be inaccurate.

[Greg Ansel]

That makes more sense.

[Mike Hollingshead]

I just received a call from Fox News about a story they are working on about fake news pictures and footage. Apparently, due the lack of "good" images from this years major events, the press is being bombarded with images from past years -- being passed off for this year.

The story is set for around 3-3:30 PM EST, today 7-10-08, subject to change as always.

Warren

Yikes, that's all the better they could show the "comparison"? LOL those looked like completely different times of the day, let alone shape/size/landscape....because they were. I don't get the media sometimes. "Ah this "comparison" will work". That was just strange. They showed the setting sun tornado video from 2004 and then went to the comparison video from "Nebraska 08" and it's dark.

[Kathryn Piotrowski]

I have to disagree with the $300.00 average for footage, with respect to the usage of the mentioned footage. And with regard to the vid….copyright infringement is just plain wrong. But maybe it was his footage…guess we will have to wait and see.

OK..now about payment for footage…I wish everyone would please, just go online and do a search for industry standard rates for HD footage….This will bring everyone up to speed on what we should be charging for use of our footage. I really have a problem with persons who just want to see their footage on air and practically give it away…if not just GIVE IT AWAY.

We (storm chasers) are a niche and any serious production house filling a niche (i.e., oceanography, cavers, rainforest, skydiving) receives industry standard payment for their footage.

For instance, 0-60 sec… standard DV for broadcast and Web $40/sec ….HD for broadcast $50/sec ….Ad and Theatrical for $75-$80/sec pricing goes down for additional per sec charge after 60 sec purchase. Minimum 10 sec for Broadcast and Web DV is $400.….Minimum 10 sec for Broadcast HD is $500

This is just a portion of the rates production houses charge for use of their footage…and of course the licensing agreement plays a huge role in making sure that the footage is used for a particular venue and not repackaged for free. Also, if the event is extraordinary, a 24hr exclusive rights usage can command $2500.00 and that is by industry standards for production houses.

I have heard all of the hoopla from some about WE SHOULDN’T SELL OUR FOOTAGE…come on…How many wonderful documentaries have you seen on the wonders of the ocean…thank God for the guy/group who has a passion for the ocean and underwater filming and photography, selling it at industry standard. He has brought us into a world we know little about and has done the production industry a good service by not giving his video away. Just watch the credits at the end of one of the documentaries and you will be amazed the list of production houses. I assure you they did not give their footage away for free.

[MatthewCarman]

Taken from the 2008 chaser partner thread and posted by AndrewFabel:

I have room to take 1-2 chasers from mid April to May 3rd -- the rest of May & all of June I'm totally full since my girlfriend and other chasers are going out w/ me this year. I'm a full-time, professional tornado chaser -- I own a film company that sells my severe weather footage all year round.


Does anyone know what his film company is called and if they have a site?

[Joey Ketcham]

Found this more detailed story, according to the story Dan Robinson - another fellow ST'er - was the one who outed Andy.


Jul 10, 2008, By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer
A storm chaser accused of doctoring old tornado video and selling it under the pretense that it was taken last week in Nebraska denied wrongdoing Thursday, suggesting that professional jealousy was behind the allegation.


The Associated Press and video services operated by CBS, NBC and Fox pulled the video late Tuesday after determining that there was enough evidence to question its authenticity.


Andy Fabel agreed to sell the footage for $295 to The Associated Press, and also made it available to the other news organizations. The AP has purchased tornado video from Fabel on three previous occasions. A fellow storm chaser, Dan Robinson of Appalachian Skies Media, contacted the AP to say he believed Fabel's video was a doctored version of images taken of another twister that touched down four years ago in Rock, Kan.


Fabel told the AP on Thursday that he legitimately filmed the Nebraska storm. He said fellow storm chasers are "jealous of you if you got a tornado that they wanted. They'll pack it up and try to crucify you." Robinson said the image was "flipped" to make it seem the tornado was pointed in another direction, and the action sped up. The supposed Nebraska footage includes power lines not seen in the Kansas storm; it also is minus trees shown in the Kansas images.


Robinson said he was familiar with the Kansas storm because he, too, had filmed it from a similar angle. He said at least four other storm chasers who had witnessed the Kansas storm agreed on an Internet forum that the video was from Kansas.


The AP had sent Fabel's video Sunday to nearly 2,000 Web sites that subscribe to the company's Online Video Network, and more than 60 large digital customers that buy AP's online content individually. Upon seeing the evidence, the AP eliminated the video from OVN and contacted its other customers to urge them not to use it, said Kevin Roach, the AP's acting head of domestic broadcast news operations.


"We never want to mislead people," Roach said. "Based on evidence provided to us, we believe that the video was not authentic."


Roach said the AP looked at the two video streams side-by-side, and examined individual frames of the footage in making its determination. He also asked for opinions from a photo editor and third storm chaser, Roach said.


"It was rather definitive for us," he said.


The NBC, CBS and Fox services provide video to the networks' affiliates. They had agreed to buy Fabel's video and distributed it, then took it off their servers on Tuesday after suspicions were raised, representatives for the networks said.


"There was enough evidence for us to make it suspect," said Sharon Houston, an executive producer with NBC News Channel.


John Stack, vice president of newsgathering for Fox News Channel, said Fabel has been one of the top storm chasers relied upon by media for tornado pictures. Now he said Fabel's work is suspect.


"The concern is whether he's an actual newsgatherer or Cecil B. DeMille," Stack said.


With both storm chasers being stormtrack members, I'm surprised that neither have chimed in. Andy has logged in since this post was made, obviously he knows it exist and if the video is legit then I would think he would defend himself on here, who knows.

[Andrea Griffa]

I have to disagree with the $300.00 average for footage, with respect to the usage of the mentioned footage. And with regard to the vid….copyright infringement is just plain wrong. But maybe it was his footage…guess we will have to wait and see.

OK..now about payment for footage…I wish everyone would please, just go online and do a search for industry standard rates for HD footage….This will bring everyone up to speed on what we should be charging for use of our footage. I really have a problem with persons who just want to see their footage on air and practically give it away…if not just GIVE IT AWAY.

We (storm chasers) are a niche and any serious production house filling a niche (i.e., oceanography, cavers, rainforest, skydiving) receives industry standard payment for their footage.

For instance, 0-60 sec… standard DV for broadcast and Web $40/sec ….HD for broadcast $50/sec ….Ad and Theatrical for $75-$80/sec pricing goes down for additional per sec charge after 60 sec purchase. Minimum 10 sec for Broadcast and Web DV is $400.….Minimum 10 sec for Broadcast HD is $500

This is just a portion of the rates production houses charge for use of their footage…and of course the licensing agreement plays a huge role in making sure that the footage is used for a particular venue and not repackaged for free. Also, if the event is extraordinary, a 24hr exclusive rights usage can command $2500.00 and that is by industry standards for production houses.

I have heard all of the hoopla from some about WE SHOULDN’T SELL OUR FOOTAGE…come on…How many wonderful documentaries have you seen on the wonders of the ocean…thank God for the guy/group who has a passion for the ocean and underwater filming and photography, selling it at industry standard. He has brought us into a world we know little about and has done the production industry a good service by not giving his video away. Just watch the credits at the end of one of the documentaries and you will be amazed the list of production houses. I assure you they did not give their footage away for free.

Thank you Kathryn, it's very important to have an idea about the price that a video should have. Now my question is: when you sell a video to a TV for 40$/sec do you sell all the rights to that TV or not?. I mean, you could sell the video to another TV or you don't have the copyright anymore, that is the video is not your anymore?

And as regards pictures, how do you behave?Wich is the price for pictures?

[Shane Adams]

With both storm chasers being stormtrack members, I'm surprised that neither have chimed in. Andy has logged in since this post was made, obviously he knows it exist and if the video is legit then I would think he would defend himself on here, who knows.

You're on the wrong page...Dan has talked much about this situation on the "re-used tornado" thread.

[Kathryn Piotrowski]

In reply to Andrea...
That is where a licensing agreement comes into place...you ALWAYS want to maintain control of your footage...you NEVER want to give up the rights/transfer to your footage. Nowadays a good licensing agreement has to encompass the web, webisodes, promo's, other packaging...

I should have posted a new thread on this subject...so Andrea please private PM me and I will give you details on how we represent other storm chasers on their footage.

With regard to the stolen footage...I have found YouTube to really step up to the plate with pulling footage that we have found belonging to Jeff. I had to send a letter (that my attorney helped me draft) and we received an immediate response and they pulled the guy off YouTube...I know, I know he probably got back on under another name but by golly he lost what he had on there and they have enough info on him to track for a while.

Now we just have to keep up on watching YouTube...everyone just needs to speak out if they think someone's vid is pirated.

[Chad Cowan]

With both storm chasers being stormtrack members, I'm surprised that neither have chimed in. Andy has logged in since this post was made, obviously he knows it exist and if the video is legit then I would think he would defend himself on here, who knows.

6000+ page views and you're not one :)
http://www.stormtrack.org/forum/showthread.php?t=17369

[MatthewCarman]

Found this more detailed story, according to the story Dan Robinson - another fellow ST'er - was the one who outed Andy.



With both storm chasers being stormtrack members, I'm surprised that neither have chimed in. Andy has logged in since this post was made, obviously he knows it exist and if the video is legit then I would think he would defend himself on here, who knows.

People would just tell him what he did was wrong and he already knows that. Everyone has been saying what he did was wrong. No need to beat a dead horse. It would be nice to see him admit to what he did and apologize but he is not doing that and I would be suprised if he did.

[Joey Ketcham]

People would just tell him what he did was wrong and he already knows that. Everyone has been saying what he did was wrong. No need to beat a dead horse. It would be nice to see him admit to what he did and apologize but he is not doing that and I would be suprised if he did.

If he's publicly saying in an article put out by the AP that the video is legit, then you would think that he would be on here defending it. I don't know, I would just expect some sort of response from him, whether it be an apology or kiss my *** or something, not just silence.

[Maggie Kahman]

If he's publicly saying in an article put out by the AP that the video is legit, then you would think that he would be on here defending it. I don't know, I would just expect some sort of response from him, whether it be an apology or kiss my *** or something, not just silence.

I have been told that silence is agreement...

[Mike Peregrine]

Honestly - and this is not going to be a plug for any of the several entities doing this these days - the agreement/licensing angle on selling footage is complex enough that unless you are willing to pay an attorney to draft a set of licenses for different circumstances, and then educate yourself on how to negotiate, and then feel willing to pull off successful negotiations with the media every time you have video to bring to market, you're better off finding someone with experience in this to represent you. They will get more money for you in the long run than if you try to do it yourself, even after paying commissions.

Speaking from the chaser perspective, I want to see tornadoes and get pictures of them. I don't have the time or inclination to mess around with all the other stuff, and I've worked in the legal field since 1992, helping draft who knows how many agreements at this point. It is totally worth it to locate and use an agent to market this with you, and fortunately there are several chasers who understand the whole agent thing.

I'm not selling video at all these days, so I'm not signed with anyone. I've taken a couple years where I'm just enjoying chasing again (and you can tell the quality of my video, which has pretty much regressed back to sucky - or maybe it was never anything but). Anyway, if you really want to sell video, I still feel like it's a good idea to find trustworthy representation to market it for you - it's a big load off.

This will automatically mean that you'll have to start paying closer attention to quality, though. If you're really into the news angle, you would also have to pay attention to time, which was my least favorite aspect of the gig. It used to force people to leave a chase early to try and scoop the other chasers. Now, with the media market being dead, it's more about producing a quality product. The best video has a better chance of being purchased later. I don't think you even have to worry so much anymore about having ten different angles on every storm. Production companies may want more than one angle anyway.

By the way - even though YouTube is the leader, a person can post video to Vimeo in true HD (once you learn the export settings) ... and you can lock it down so it cannot be downloaded by other people. There are still ways of capturing it, but it lessens the risk. Also - don't forget to plaster your videos with your copyright - and preferably a website name that people can go to if they want to find the real deal. I personally am seeing the copyright thing a little differently than I used to. I think that file sharing is HERE TO STAY. It is NOT going away. People will always figure out ways of doing it ... so as an industry, we would be better off finding ways of working with the new market than against it. But that's just me.

[MatthewCarman]

If he's publicly saying in an article put out by the AP that the video is legit, then you would think that he would be on here defending it. I don't know, I would just expect some sort of response from him, whether it be an apology or kiss my *** or something, not just silence.

All it would do is cause a big arguement or a fight if he did come on here and defend himself. He clearly has stated according to him we are all wrong about the video so he is not going to admit what he did or agree with us about any of this. Once he posted the video was legit and we are all jelouse of him here members would start giving him a hard time or attacking him etc and it would turn into a ugly mess. Stress is not good for anyone and that is all that would result from it. The last thing we need at ST is more noise and we have beaten to many dead horses over the last few years that it get's boring.

So I can see why he is not posting in this thread. I know I wouldin't (Unless I was apologizing) if I had hundreds of members upset with me and ready to give me a peace of thier mind. Think about it.

[Joey Ketcham]

All it would do is cause a big arguement or a fight if he did come on here and defend himself. He clearly has stated according to him we are all wrong about the video so he is not going to admit what he did or agree with us about any of this. Once he posted the video was legit and we are all jelouse of him here members would start giving him a hard time or attacking him etc and it would turn into a ugly mess. Stress is not good for anyone and that is all that would result from it. The last thing we need at ST is more noise and we have beaten to many dead horses over the last few years that it get's boring.

So I can see why he is not posting in this thread. I know I wouldin't (Unless I was apologizing) if I had hundreds of members upset with me and ready to give me a peace of thier mind. Think about it.

Bah. I would at least like to hear his story before being the judge, jury and executor and hanging him out to dry. The video obviously is the same, but it's only fair to give him a chance to respond and if he's claiming the video is legit than why doesn't he stand by that and defend himself? I certainly know I would. There is nothing wrong with me wanting him to respond, in fact I find it rather odd that he hasn't. I'm a person who likes to give people a chance to tell their side of the story before I tighten the noose around their neck, disagree with that all you want, we can just agree to disagree.