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]

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.

 

[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?