AP pulls chaser's tornado video

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.
 
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!
 
tornado footage

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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 because who's video it is is still uncertain even if what event it was is not.
 
That could make sense

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
We need to get real with video pricing!

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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Back
Top